Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-10-14 Park Board PacketAGENDA CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA PARK BOARD MEETING PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY MULTIPURPOSE ROOM Monday, October 6, 2014 7 p.m. CALL TO ORDER II. INTRODUCE STUDENT MEMBERS III. ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA V. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes — Work Session Tuesday, August 11, 2014 at 5 p.m. B. Approval of Minutes — Work Session Tuesday, August 11, 2014 at 6 p.m. C. Approval of Minutes — Regular Meeting on August 11, 2014 VI. COMMUNITY COMMENT During "Community Comment, " the Park Board will invite residents to share relevant issues or concerns. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Board Members to respond to their comments tonight. Instead, the Board might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting. VII. REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS A. Arden Park Sidewalk Addition B. Fred Richards Vision Plan C. 2015 Fees and Charges D. 2015 Park Board Work Plan C 7 E. 40th & France Property F. Grandview Update VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS A. Council Updates B. Other Correspondence IX. CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS X. STAFF COMMENTS XI. ADJOURNMENT The city of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. n MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION OF THE EDINA PARK BOARD HELD AT CITY HALL August 11, 2014 5:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Gieseke called the meeting to order at 5:04 p.m. 11. COMMUNITY SURVEY WITH UNMET NEEDS ASSESSMENT — Facilitated by Ron Vine, ETC Institute Ms. Kattreh introduced Ron Vine of ETC Institute. Ms. Kattreh noted the goal of this workshop and feedback is to help expedite the upcoming community survey, to help provide a solid basis for working on the future of Fred Richards as well as the Park Master Plan. Mr. Vine provided some history of his professional background, including the 2006 needs assessment he completed for the City of Edina. Mr. Vine noted he has completed about 400 surveys related to master park planning. He believes the survey has to be integrated seamlessly in order to get the master plan to work. Generally, the kinds of master plans done today are a combination of a long-range and a short-range plan. Member Deeds asked how he would handle public input on two parcels in Edina: Fred Richards and Grandview. Mr. Deeds stated the survey has to have a lot of macro questions, as well as very specific options and questions about the frequency of use. He would start giving very specific options on about page four of the survey, after going through unmet needs. In response to a question by Member Segreto, Ms. Kattreh indicated the goal is to turn this around very quickly, and the draft should be available by the end of the week. The Park Board will then be able to review and comment. Mr. Vine noted he would like to send out the survey right after Labor Day. Member Steel asked about the expedited timeline; Ms. Kattreh responded it is because she was asked to do it in an expedited manner by a member of the City Council in order to assist with the Fred Richards decision. Member Steel stated Edina residents have a hard time deciphering between school/community education and city parks and recreation. She suggested there be a clear distinction made so there is less confusion. She would like a question to address what residents are participating in if they are not participating in city programming. Mr. Vine stated he likes to begin with the questions about what residents are participating in now, and then move to vision, needs, unmet needs, priorities, and sustainability, concluding with demographics. Chair Gieseke stated he would like information about trends in other communities. Member Segreto asked about the process of handling people's suggestions for community needs. Mr. Vine responded that he believes 98 percent of the survey should be closed -ended questions, followed by giving respondents a few chances to suggest things. Member Jones stated she would like to be open to new and innovative ideas. Mr. Vine responded that information will be gathered by mining the respondent information carefully. Member Deeds asked about the Senior Center questions on the survey. Mr. Vine suggested focusing on activities and programming and see how the facilities match up. Member Steel noted that some people like the activities of the Senior Center, but do not like the idea of participating there because of the name "senior" in the title. Mr. Vine stated the issue of golf is very interesting, because Fred Richards is closing down. He suggested dividing things by needs/unmet needs by indoor and outdoor. Member Steel suggested focusing on questions of socialization and possibilities for it. Mr. Vine noted some communities have addressed that aspect by questioning about what are the benefits of living in the city. Member Steel noted the recent community survey (not conducted by Mr. Vine) reported that 35 percent of residents use community programming, but 99 percent are satisfied with the offerings available. Mr. Vine highlighted various ways to look at performance measurements. He also discussed the matrix ® of importance and satisfaction. Member Deeds suggested consolidating some types of questions in order to leave space for other types of questions. Member Greene asked about benchmarking these types of surveys. Ms. Kattreh noted the city has agreed on the priority of conducting a quality -of -life survey every two years. We could consider a similar update to this survey. Mr. Vine stated questions about needs/unmet needs are generally longer-term surveys. Satisfaction and usage are where big strides can be made. Perhaps every two years, a quarter of this survey can be re -done. Mr. Vine noted this survey will be sent out to 3,000 households, and those people will also have the opportunity to complete it online. If 600 are not received back, phone surveys will then happen. Mr. Vine noted there will be some weighting in the results; if it gets too significant, phone surveys will have to be done. Over -sampling may be done surrounding the Fred Richards area. Member Steel suggested asking about use of L.A. Fitness and additional need for walking trails. Member Deeds asked if they go outside the city for athletic facilities. Mr. Vine noted sometimes a need is being met outside the city. What needs to be focused on are the areas of importance where needs are not being met. 2 Member Steel noted it would be helpful to note what populations the private businesses serve, because as demographics shift, more programming might be necessary. Mr. Vine noted this is enough quantity for a 10 -page survey, so it is important to focus on the core areas. Ms. Kattreh noted that if anything else comes up in the next day or two, she can forward it on to Mr. Vine. The work session adjourned at 6:01 p.m. MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION OF THE EDINA PARK BOARD HELD AT CITY HALL August 11, 2014 6:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Chair Gieseke called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. 11. FRED RICHARDS REPURPOSE VISIONING UPDATE — Facilitated by Jeff and Kathy Schoenbauer Ms. Kattreh indicated that staff is continuing to gather input and feedback on the repurposing of Fred Richards, and tonight's information will be presented to the Park Board in a graphical form. This same information was presented to the City Council last week for the purposes of feedback, and feedback is also requested from the Park Board tonight. There will be a public open house on September 23 at 7 p.m. at the Public Works building. Following that, the Park Board will be asked at its October meeting to make a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Schoenbauer noted this has intentionally been a multi -step process. The first part of this is narrowing the focus and creating a vision with the city and the community. The purpose of this presentation is to accurately get the vision on the table, so the city knows what it is looking for moving forward. Creativity and innovation have been themes to date. Mr. Schoenbauer noted the September 23 meeting will be more of an open house format, and the details continue to be worked out. Consensus seems to be quite strong that Fred Richards should be a ® community park to serve residents. It is nice to get away from the fear among some residents that it would be sold for development or turned into a big pond. He noted that there are still some people unhappy with the closing of Fred Richards. Mr. Schoenbauer added that local businesses are essentially on board with the repurposing plans, including Pentagon Park. The goal is to find a balance between recreational uses and open space. Right now, 35 percent would be developed for more active forms of recreation, with 65 percent more passive recreation. All the graphics and percentages will be refined going forward, as more information is gathered. He pointed out the field games area and the regional trail location. Member Steel asked about property values. Mr. Schoenbauer noted that a regional trail tends to uptick property values, like park land in general. His expectation is that this will certainly have no net negative effect on adjoining properties, and will most likely be seen as an increase in property values. Mrs. Schoenbauer commented on an increase in ponding to enhance the design and aesthetic of the park. The parkway comes on and off 77th Street, and there would be some parking along there. The goal is to try to get as much access as possible from the south. Mr. Schoenbauer noted people find urban agriculture an interesting concept; this should be kept in the report as an alternative rather than on the forefront, based upon what City Council has said. He briefly reviewed parking and the possible alignment of the regional trail. Member Steel asked about more innovative ideas for the park and play areas. Mr. Schoenbauer discussed the value of hiring someone with expertise in designing a playground area. Mrs. Schoenbauer noted the splash pad idea has come up multiple times. Mr. Schoenbauer noted there is also greater interest in capturing an older segment of kids, by providing things like slack -lining. Landscape architects are paying attention to those trends, and the final report will make it clear that creative ideas want to be considered. He also commented that the design of the park will drive how much additional ponding will be possible in the park. Member Steel asked about stagnant water. Mr. Schoenbauer responded that is a concern that would be addressed during the design phase; the Watershed District would be a good resource for that. Member Jones expressed preference for loop trails. Mr. Schoenbauer noted loop trails and areas for rest will be part of the design. Mr. Schoenbauer discussed naturalized buffers, noting that trails should not be any closer from 50 to 60 feet from the back of a property, but that varies depending on natural vegetation and topography. He noted that poor soils are an ongoing concern. Member Jacobson asked about wintertime usage. Mr. Schoenbauer noted the most popular usage would be just plowing the trails in the wintertime. Member Steel asked about potential programming and staffing. Ms. Kattreh stated there is a lot of programming capacity at this park. It would give the city the ability to offer a natural environment program. Fred Richard's clubhouse would be a home for that type of a program. Staffing could be ramped up as programming needs dictate whether it is educational or fitness programming. Member Jones asked about a tot lot. Mrs. Schoenbauer responded there would be different areas for different ages. Member Jones noted the city is trying to be good stewards of its limited resources. She is wondering about the cost of some of the proposed ideas. She asked about how much funding is going toward the southeast in Edina. She knows that area does not have any swing sets and they need them. A lot of city resources are going into Centennial Lakes and Edinborough Park. Mr. Schoenbauer agreed that innovation and creativity costs money. There is a balance between desires and what is affordable. The cost of the parkway is a shared responsibility with the developer. Member Jones asked about the road. Mr. Schoenbauer noted the city should suggest the road be on the developer's side and, from that point, it becomes a negotiation point. Mrs. Schoenbauer added that the Pentagon Park developer's primary interest is in wellness, and so they are excited about having this area become a park. Chair Gieseke asked about conversations with the Three Rivers Park District. Mr. Schoenbauer summarized that the Park District is ecstatic about being part of this park. They do not have a profound need for trail -head facilities. Mrs. Schoenbauer added that the parking situation will be the trickier aspect. Mr. Schoenbauer noted that business parking self -manages, because they are used during the day rather than evenings and weekends. 2 Member Steel asked about costs. Mr. Schoenbauer noted preliminary costs will come in the draft report. Member Steel added that there needs to be maintenance numbers included as well. Because reducing maintenance costs was cited as a primary factor in closing Fred Richards, unless it can be proved that this plan will save significant dollars, she cannot vote for it. Chair Gieseke concurred with Member Steel's comments, noting this is a credibility issue with the neighborhood. The work session adjourned at 6:47 p.m. 3 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA PARK BOARD HELD AT CITY HALL August 11, 2014 7 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Chair Gieseke called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Answering roll call were Members Segreto, Jones, Greene, Steel, Gieseke, McCormick, Downing, Jacobson. Member Cella arrived at 7:46 p.m. Member Deeds arrived at 7:55 p.m. 111. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA Member Segreto made a motion, seconded by Member Steel, to approve the meeting agenda. Ayes: Segreto, Jones, Greene, Steel, Gieseke, McCormick, Downing, Jacobson. Motion carried. IV. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA Member Steel made a motion, seconded by Member Segreto, to approve the consent agenda as follows: W.A. Approval of June 10, 2014 Minutes W.B. Approval of July 8, 2014 Work Session Minutes Ayes: Segreto, Jones, Greene, Steel, Gieseke, McCormick, Downing, Jacobson. Motion carried. V. COMMUNITY COMMENT None. Vl. REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS VI.A. Park Master Plan Consultant Interviews Ms. Kattreh explained each of the consultants present tonight has 20 minutes to present, followed by 10 minutes of questions by the Park Board. A ballot will be taken at the end of the interviews. Ms.. Kattreh introduced the first interviewee, Confluence. Terry Minark, the principal of Confluence introduced himself, and Jeff Bransford, Janna Kieffer, Brian Clark, and Mark Wentzell each introduced themselves and explained the way they would support the master planning process. Mr. Minark provided a biographical sketch and resume of Confluence. Brian Clark walked the Park Board through the basic process they use in developing master plans, and how to engage the public in the planning process. Jeff Bransford discussed the process can be boiled down to a 3 -step process: visioning, analysis, and putting together a roadmap for how to achieve that. He discussed the research that can be done to produce data -driven decisions. Mr. Minark explained the planning process being with a facility conditions evaluations. Mr. Wentzell discussed the importance of looking at the physical buildings in the park system as well, specifically looking at maintenance issues and long-term viability. Ms. Kieffer discussed the stormwater issues 1 involved in park master planning. Mr. Minark summarized the process will ultimately create a technical document that is also accessible for implementation, with a goal of sustainability and flexibility. Member Segreto asked if this team present tonight has worked together previously. Mr. Minark responded affirmatively, noting that this team is working together currently for the City of Minneapolis. Member Jones asked how many parks and recreation master plans Confluence works on per year. Mr. Minark responded that Pros and Confluence work together on approximately five master plans per year. Chair Gieseke asked them to describe a project completed within the last three years of which they are particularly proud. Mr. Bransford described a project for Oletha, Kansas, in which Confluence and Pros worked together as a team. Mr. Minark and Mr. Bransford also discussed the ways in which parks and recreation programming help communities economically. Member Steel asked about complementing the city's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Minark stated that integrating into the Comprehensive Plan is a flexible process. Member McCormick asked how the team would look at repurposing existing fields or facilities. Mr. Minark responded that data would be gathered on the programming of the space; this data is also gathered through interviews from city staff and parks and recreation programmers. An analysis would also be done with regard to user trends. Mr. Bransford added that participation data is gathered, as well as nationally published sporting information. Ms. Kattreh asked the Confluence team about working with an outside consultant, such as ETC Institute, who is preparing a community survey for the city to help guide this process. Mr. Bransford responded that his firm has worked with Ron Vine of the ETC Institute on at least 200-300 occasions. Member Jones asked how the team would define "public facility." Mr. Wentzell discussed collaborations between public and private entities, and he cited the new curling center being built in Chaska. Chair Gieseke thanked the Confluence team for their helpful presentation. Member Cella arrived at 7:46 p.m. Member Deeds arrived at 7:55 p.m. Chair Gieseke invited the next team of candidates to present: Bruce Jacobson (Director of Landscape Architecture at Cuningham Group) and Bob Close (Close Landscape Architecture). Mr. Close stated the parks assessment will be integrated with the needs assessment currently underway. He discussed the value of designing a park system from tot lots to seniors. He noted that Edina has an iconic value, which should be maintained in part through its park system. Mr. Jacobson discussed the process of creating a physical plan, management plan, financial plan, communication plan, and implementation plan. He noted the success depends on the collaborative effort. Member Steel asked about the public engagement process. Mr. Jacobson responded the critical thing is to find out how the public views the system, how they connect with it, what makes the system unique. Member Jones asked how many city-wide parks master plans they have been involved in within the past year. Mr. Jacobson responded they have not handled any citywide master plans, but have been heavily involved with multiple -neighborhood and new community parks planning. Mr. Close indicated they have focused more on the components of the system rather than the entire system. Member Jones asked about the work they have done in a city most closely resembling Edina. Mr. Jacobson cited work in Maryland as well as Dakota County and Ramsey. Mr. Jacobson noted he has been involved in the Grandview area, and Mr. Close has been involved in Pentagon Park. Member Downing asked what would be the biggest challenge for a project of this scale. Mr. Jacobson responded he has toured Edina and noted it is a compact city; the biggest challenge is to reach out to each neighborhood. Member Steel asked how they see this being integrated into the city's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Jacobson responded there will be actions that come out of each plan (physical, management, financial, communications, and implementation). As tactics are defined, some will be vetted by the city and some will be adopted as policy or go into financial planning or overall marketing and communications. Chair Gieseke thanked them for their presentation. Chair Gieseke welcomed Bob Kost, Greg Kalpino, and Karen Lugar of SEH. The team introduced themselves, noting there are other members of their firm whose resources they will draw upon. Mr. Kost began his presentation by saying the theme is: approach, concept, and reality. He discussed how to define the vision, a continuum of engagement, developing the concepts, and achieving the reality. The team discussed numerous projects they are working on, including current trends such as vegetable gardens, ice for curling, and employing the work of local sculpture artists. Member Jones asked how many parks master plans the team has worked on in the last year. Mr. Kost responded they have worked on about three in the last couple of years. They have worked on the parks aspect of Comprehensive Plans for three cities as well. Ms. Kattreh asked about working with Ron Vine or ETC Institute. Mr. Kalpino responded he has worked with Mr. Vine, and he would be a seamless piece of the team. Member Downing asked about another project where they have had to work with many different types of parks and facilities. Mr. Kalpino responded Elgin is an example. Mr. Kost noted he has also worked on the Burnsville master parks system, which has a similar mix of parks to Edina and required a multi-level assessment as well. Member Deeds asked where the strategy piece comes in to help the Park Board 10 years from now. Ms. Lugar responded there are policies and guiding principles. Mr. Kalpino responded the phasing and implementation strategy will play a role in that — that is the way to bridge time. Member Deeds asked about the process of creating a set of principles and decision guidelines. Mr. Kost responded there is a systematic process to this; every community is different, but the methodology is similar. Planning is very systematic and relies on the NRPA's criteria. They use the Envision software that is a sustainability rating software. That is another tool to help figure out the goals. The guiding principles are determined with the Park Board and become the litmus test going forward. Mr. Kost noted this is a legacy document that is kept and updated, similar to a city's Comprehensive Plan. Chair Gieseke thanked the team for their presentation. Member Greene excused himself from the fourth presentation. Chair Gieseke welcomed the next interviewees. Ken Grieshaber from SRF Consulting Group introduced himself, along with Joanie Giese, whose focus is stormwater management, and Michael Schroeder, with whom he is currently working on other master planning projects. Mr. Grieshaber and his team highlighted past projects and experiences related to parks master planning (in Eden Prairie), the Plymouth Comp Plan, as well as the North Minneapolis Greenway. They also discussed the important process of stakeholder outreach, as well as the current demographics and trends in Edina. They also offered the service for concept plans for existing parks that may need some redevelopment. Member Jones asked how many park master plans the team has worked on in the last year. Mr. Grieshaber responded by mentioning several master plans they have recently finished work on or are working on right now. Member Jones asked about the involvement in Grandview. Mr. Schroeder explained about his significant time investment in his volunteer role in the Grandview process. Mr. Downing commented that a lot of the plan will be based on input from the public. Mr. Grieshaber explained the task force meetings where the public are invited to attend; he also cited electronic media as well as communication via the city's website. In response to a question by Member McCormick, Mr. Schroeder explained how park concept planning was done in Roseville. Ms. Kattreh noted the city has hired Ron Vine of the ETC Institute to complete a community survey, and she inquired how SRF would implement those results. Mr. Schroeder recalled a value -based survey he utilized for the City of Roseville, which allowed them to discern the first steps forward. His team really prefers to start with the idea of what values are important to the community. Member Deeds asked how SRF can develop a strategic vision that lasts for 15 or 20 years. Mr. Schroeder responded that Edina has long been a community of innovation. He would like this pushed in the Vision Edina process as well as the Comprehensive Plan process. Mr. Grieshaber added that it is important to be good listeners, especially through the first phases of the process. Mr. Schroeder stated the key is to operationalize the plan on paper and make people responsible for moving things forward. 4 Member Jacobson asked how to identify what things are missing from the park system. Mr. Schroeder responded part of that is engaging in a dialogue. Chair Gieseke asked if there is a specific example of successful vision implementation. Mr. Schroeder recalled a what -if process of a road being removed in Golden Valley. He believes that a dialogue around possibilities will get us thinking about a master plan differently. Chair Gieseke thanked SRF for their presentation. Member Greene re joined the meeting. Chair Gieseke asked the Park Board to discuss thoughts before taking a vote. Member Downing commented that based on his experience, the process, in the long run, is what drives the entire thing. There are so many elements to making sure this process is done well, he believes it is critical that someone has done this before on this scale. Member Steel stated the City Council needs to buy into this plan, and this needs to affect the Comprehensive Plan so transportation and park systems are interconnected. Some of the consultants have more experience with the Comprehensive Plan process, and that is what she is looking for. She really enjoyed SEH's presentation. Member Deeds stated he is concerned with the last two presenters because of their heavy involvement in the City of Edina. This means they come in with a preconceived notion of what the city looks like. In reading through the reports, he does not see a lot of strategy in the sense of thinking about how Edina positions itself competitively against the other community, to maintain its status as the premier suburb in the Twin Cities. Member Greene commented he believes Confluence is the only group who presented tonight that is capable of handling a project of this scope. Member Segreto commented she really looks to staff for leadership. Member Deeds indicated that the consultants are brought in to provide information and viewpoint, and the staff and City Council have to make decisions and show leadership. He believes the consultant should be able to provide vision on how Edina maintains its position. The point of bringing in outside consultants is to help reassess the existing framework. Member Downing commented that Confluence was the only group who brought all the members of its team along, demonstrated significant experience in master planning in comparable cities, and introduced the concept of return on investment in terms of the park system. Ms. Kattreh indicated she feels like she is looking at the park system from a blank slate, and she is excited to bring in a consultant to help guide the planning process for the next 10 to 20 years. She has worked with several of the consultants, including the Cuningham Group, Barr Engineering, and SEH. From a staff perspective, she would be happy to work with any of the groups. Member Cella commented she missed the Confluence presentation, but her primary concern is their extensive experience with similar cities leading to a cookie -cutter plan for Edina. She wants a plan that is really specific to who Edina is and where the city wants to be. Member Jones commented she believes they have done a great deal of background and talked about Edina specifically. Member Steel noted Confluence spent a great deal talking about their experience rather than what they can deliver, and she leans more towards what can be delivered. Member Deeds asked whether there will be trouble with having Pros consultant being based out of Indianapolis. Member Downing explained he thinks Pros would be responsible for process, and that would be the national element. Confluence, however, seemed to be more in tune with what is happening locally. Making it local and Edina is the responsibility of the Park Board and Edina. The Park Board discussed the importance of process and vision. The Park Board took a secret ballot to select the consultant. Chair Gieseke announced Confluence as the selected consultant, receiving eight votes. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS VII.A. Council Updates VII.B. Veteran's Memorial Committee (April 18, 2014 Minutes) No comments were made. VIII. CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Chair Gieseke indicated Member Steel is now a candidate for the City Council. IX. STAFF COMMENTS Ms. Kattreh reported the Sports Dome project is coming along quite well and is on schedule for an early December opening. She noted Pamela Park is still waiting for Watershed District approval, which should happen any day. X. ADJOURNMENT Chair Gieseke made a motion, seconded by Member Downing, to adjourn the meeting at 9:46 p.m. Ayes: Members Segreto, Jones, Greene, Steel, Gieseke, McCormick, Downing, Jacobson, Deeds, Cella. Motion Carried. The meeting adjourned at 9:46 p.m. 11 To: Park Board From: Ann Kattreh, Parks & Recreation Director Toby Muse, Project Manager, SEH Date: October 6, 2014 Subject: Arden Park Sidewalk Addition 0 Ce:. Y tit • PORKt�" • 18 Fill Agenda Item #: VII.A. Action x❑ Discussion ❑ Information ❑ Action Requested: Approve 8 -foot wide sidewalk addition to Arden Park. Review other potential impacts to Arden Park. Information / Background: The Arden Park D Neighborhood Roadway Improvement Project is planned for construction in 2015. Engineering staff is developing the project's engineering study. The City Council will review the final engineering study and determine if the project will move forward at a special meeting on December 9, 2014. As discussed at the April I, 2014 City Council work session, the project will incorporate many elements of our draft Living Streets plan. These elements include installation of sidewalks with boulevards on at least one side of the roadway, narrowing the roadway to 24 -foot face-to-face of curb, restricting parking to one side of the street, and identify opportunities for storm water infiltration. The project involves reconstruction of approximately 12,000 -foot or just over 2 - miles of streets with the potential of extensive utility replacements. The existing watermain is a combination of cast iron and ductile iron pipe. The neighborhood has a history of water service leaks. To determine the condition of the watermain pipe, staff will be conducting non -destruction testing of the watermain pipes to determine the cost effectiveness of replacement. The attached graphic shows potential impacts to Arden Park. A few items to note: • Two storm sewer pipe runs may need to be lined or removed and replaced. Engineering staff is awaiting TV work of these pipes before a method of reconstruction is chosen. • A grass drainage swale may be incorporated south of the active green area in the park from approximately the middle of Minnehaha Boulevard to Minnehaha Creek. This could be placed in lieu of the storm sewer work or in addition to it. It would follow the existing tree line along the street. • An emergency stormwater overflow swale is proposed through the park along the tree line north of the existing playground. This will relieve the area of Arden Avenue that floods due to an undersized storm sewer in 52nd St. • An 8 -foot wide sidewalk will be installed adjacent to the street on the south half of City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 REPORT/ RECOMMENDATION Minnehaha Boulevard. It will slightly traverse out into Arden Park near the north half of the street in order to preserve existing mature trees. • A 3 -foot high modular block retaining wall will be placed against the sidewalk where existing steep slopes exist along the south half of Minnehaha Boulevard. • Existing brush will need to be cleared in the area where the retaining wall is proposed to be built. • A potential construction material/equipment storage area is shown in the graphic. The location would be fenced off and away from predominant park activities. • The 24 -inch sanitary sewer in the park will be lined. Lining will require access to existing manholes for a large truck. The lining work may take place in the late winter of 2015. When streets are being reconstructed adjacent to parks, the addition of sidewalks to provide safe neighborhood access to parks is being considered. This was recently completed at both Strachauer and Weber parks. Parks & Recreation Department staff recommends the approval of the sidewalk at Arden Park. Toby Muse, SEH Project Manager will be at the Park Board meeting and will make a brief presentation and answer questions. Attachment: Arden Park D Neighborhood Roadway Improvements Page 2 F I ' ti j , ' t s I ora # . N y_ CREED sib e�temp` ry �\ Pos o 0 storage area 4 mim Minnehaha Boulevard Typical Section ARDEN PARK D NEIGHBORHOOD ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS ANTICIPATED PARK IMPACTS EDINA, MN /y IMPROVEMENT NO. BA -412 U' SEPTEMBER 30, 2014 SEH EXISTING CONDITIONS EXISTING STORM SEWER TRUNK PIPE, CATCH BASIN & MANHOLE EXISTING SANITARY SEWER TRUNK PIPE & MANHOLE EXISTING WATER MAIN, HYDRANT & GATE VALVE EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY EXISTING PROPERTY LINE EXISTING BACK OF CURB POWER POLES n PROPOSED CONDITIONS REPLACE CITY OWNED STREET LIGHT PROPOSED STORM SEWER PIPE PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT & GATE VALVE 1 H RECONSTRUCT WATER MAIN TRUNK PIPE VIA T BURSTING METHOD PROPOSED WATER MAIN TRUNK PIPE VIA OPEN CUT OR HDD METHOD RECONSTRUCT WATER SERVICE PIPE & CURB STOP RECONSTRUCT SANITARY SEWER SERVICE RECONSTRUCT SANITARY SEWER TRUNK PIPE USING >— CIPP METHOD STREET PAVEMENT""— CONCRETE SIDEWALK RETAINING WALL To: Park Board From: Ann Kattreh Parks & Recreation Director Date: October 6, 2014 Subject: Fred Richards Vision Plan Action Requested: Agenda Item #: VII.B. Action Discussion Information ❑ Provide review, comment and a recommendation on the Fred Richards Vision Plan. The City Council will take formal action on this item on October 21, 2014. Information / Background: On April 22, 2014 the Edina City Council retained Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC to undertake a repurposing vision study for Fred Richards. The attached report summarizes the findings of the first step in the planning process and establishes a broad vision and baseline development program for the site. The main goal of this step is to establish the parameters for "highest and best public use" of the property, which will be used to guide development of a detailed master plan. If the Park Board recommends and the City Council approves the vision plan, the next step would be to engage a firm to complete a detailed master plan for the park. Public Involvement: The general public, neighborhood residents, various stakeholders, and special interest groups were invited to participate in an open public process to ensure that pertinent planning issues were discovered and addressed by the study. The public process included: • Public meetings — where all interested parties could provide input and perspectives • Site walks — to give residents a chance to discuss site-specific issues and concerns • Interviews, phone calls, and email exchanges — with defined stakeholder groups and special interest groups (including representatives of the Pentagon Park development group) • Social media — using the city's web -based public access portal to gather additional information on the community opinions Public input into the planning process was insightful and central to establishing a core vision for the property as the city moves forward in making important decisions about repurposing the site. The following details the public engagement and proposed approval process: First week in June - Letter mailed to almost 1500 homes — (South of Hwy 62, East of Hwy. 100, West of France Ave. and north of 77th Street.) This letter informed them of the June 12 open house and provided Fred Richards website information City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 2 Week of June 9 - A website, online survey and Speak Up Edina public engagement session started isJune 2 — Kick-off sessions with city staff, Park Board representatives and City Council representatives June 12 — Open House — Public Works Facility — 100-125 attendees. Surveys given to all attendees to fill out and web address provided to fill out survey online June 21 — Site Walk — 10 a.m. at Fred Richards — 20-25 attendees July 8 — Park Board Work Session — 5:30 p.m. — Community Room at City Hall July 9 — Site Walk —July 9 at 7 p.m. — 20-25 attendees July 30 — Open House — 7 p.m. at Public Works — 18 attendees August 4 — City Council Work Session August I I — Park Board Work Session — 6 p.m. October 6 — Park Board — Review and Comment October 21 — City Council Project Goals: Schoenbauer Consulting had the following Project Goals: The purpose of the study was to engage the public to gather information and ideas about repurposing the Fred Richards site to position the City Council to make an informed decision about its future use. Key principles established for the study include: • Maintaining an open and transparent public process • Seeking creative ideas and options • Providing context and background information to aid the City Council in analyzing and considering repurposing opportunities The consultant spent considerable time gathering background information and listening to various stakeholders and members of the community. Specifically, the team's charge was to: • Understand the community issues and perspectives associated with repurposing the site • Provide a public conduit for generating ideas • Define viable options for City Council consideration • Undertake baseline development cost evaluation • Provide perspective related to findings from the public process • Recommend a plan of action for the City Council to further consider Recommendation: Staff is seeking feedback on the Fred Richards Vision Plan. If recommended by the Park Board, the plan will be presented to City Council at the October 21, 2014 meeting when we will ask the City Council to approve the vision plan and authorize us to begin the process for selecting a firm to complete the master plan and eventually the construction documents. The City Council will thoroughly and thoughtfully consider your action on this matter at their October 21 meeting. Staff requests that Park Board consider the proposed plans and provide one of three actions: REPORT / RECOMMENDATION I. Recommend (generally support) 2. Do not recommend (do not support) 3. Recommend with specific changes Attachments: Vision Master Plan — Fred Richards Repurpose Study Notes from public process Page 3 VISION MASTER PLAN FRED RicHARDs REPURPOSE STUDY CITY OF EDINA 10/01/14 FOR Ln°iNc. hi AR\i\,c. RI'AMILIES & Doiv.c VISION MASTER PLAN FR -FD RICHARDS REPURPOSE STUDY Prepared By: Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 5054 Drew Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55410 1r �JJI �' 1'OI, LIVING, LEARNING, RAISING FAMILIES & DOING BUSINESS FRED RICHARDs REPURPOSE STUDY Introduction and Acknowledgments INTRODUCTION/OVERVIEW On April 22, 2014 the Edina City Council retained Schoenbauer OF PUBLIC PROCESS Consulting, LLC to undertake a repurposing study for Fred Richards. This report summarizes the findings of the first step in the planning process and establishes a broad vision and baseline development program for the site. The main goal of this step is to establish the parameters for "highest and best public use" of the property, which will be used to guide development of a detailed master plan. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The general public, neighborhood residents, various stakeholders, and special interest groups were invited to participate in an open public process to ensure that pertinent planning issues were discovered and addressed by the study. The public process included: • Public meetings — where all interested parties could provide input and perspectives • Site walks — to give residents a chance to discuss site-specific issues and concerns • Interviews, phone calls, and email exchanges — with defined stakeholder groups, special interest groups and nearby developers • Social media — using the City's web -based public access portal to gather additional information on community opinions Public input into the planning process was insightful and central to establishing a core vision for the property as the City moves forward in making important decisions about repurposing the site. Fou: LIVING. LIR.USIy(i F \\ui ipt & 1)(]\(] fit tiulss FRED RICHARDs REPURPOSE STUDY ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The consultant team appreciated the opportunity to work with the City of Edina in undertaking an open public process for this challenging project. The team especially acknowledges input from the many residents and stakeholder groups that were involved. Their individual and collective insights and perspectives were instrumental in drawing reasoned conclusions. The consultant team also thanks the Park Board and city staff. Their commitment to an open public process ensured that all opinions were duly considered. Their understanding of the larger planning context and how the site fits into the larger city picture was also of high value. Sincerely, Jeff Schoenbauer, Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC Principal -in -Charge / Project Manager CONSULTANT Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC TEAM 5054 Drew Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55410 jaschoenbauer@gmail.com 612.578.1975 In collaboration with: Genus Landscape Architects S 325 East 5th Street Des Moines, IA 50309 e ) FOR LIVING, LEARNING, RAISING FAnlil.u'.S & DOING Bt si ESti tl FR[;D RI('H:4RDS REPURPOSE STUDY Table of Contents BACKGROUND AND PROJECT GOALS 1 — 2 Overview/Background 1 Steps in the Repurposing Process 1 Project Goals 2 SETTING, TRENDS, AND PUBLIC OUTREACH 3 — 8 Overview 3 Planning Context and Park Setting 3 Park Use Trends and Facility Demands 4 Public Outreach Findings 6 Safety and Security 8 VISION MASTER PLAN 9-22 Overview 9 Creativity and Uniqueness a Core Value 9 Balancing Active Uses with Preserving Natural Areas and Sense of Place 9 Vision Master Plan Overview 10 Parkway Corridor 12 Regional Trail Corridor 13 Internal Park Trails, Promenades and Boardwalks 14 Community Activities and Events Area 15 Adventure Play Area 16 Field Games Area 17 Open Parkland Area 18 Naturalized Buffers 20 Repurposing the Maintenance Building 22 Urban Agriculture Area (Alternative) 22 IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS 23- 26 Overview 23 Interrelationship and Collaboration with Pentagon Park Redevelopment 23 Technical Conditions and Challenges 25 Cost Projections for Repurposing Site 26 FOR LI!'IM, , LEARNING, RAISING FAMILIES c% DOING 13l[SINCSS ""' 111 • FRED RICHARDS REPURPOSE STUDY The 42 acres of open space land provides a unique park opportunityfor the City. FOR L,IVIVG, LEARNING, RntstNc FAnIiuEs & DoiNc, BIslNtss 1V FRED RicHARDs REPURPOSE STUDY Background and Project Framework OVERVIEWBACKGROUND On March 18, 2014, the Edina City Council accepted staff and Park Board recommendations to cease the golf operation. On April 22, 2014, the City Council authorized undertaking this repurposing study, which was to be forward looking and would not focus on revisiting the decision to close the golf course. STEPS IN THE REPURPOSING This study is the first step in the process of repurposing the Fred PROCESS Richards site for public use, as the following illustrates. STARTING POINT: CITY COUNCIL DECISION TO CLOSE THE COURSE 1 STUDY FOCUS > STEP 1: CREATE A SET OF PRINCIPLES AND VISION FOR THE SITE Based on findings from this public process, Park Board and City Note: Between steps 1 and 2, the Council set parameters for "highest and best public use" of the City will consider study findings as part of park system planning property. effort. This evaluation may result in refinement of this plan as city-wide needs relative to this park are STEP 2: PREPARE A DETAILED MASTER PLAN FOR THE SITE further considered. Consistent with the findings of step 1 and City Council directives. STEP 3: DEVELOP FUNDING PACKAGE Depending on the type and scope of final master plan outcomes, may or may not require phasing. STEP 4: UNDERTAKE CONSTRUCTION Includes preparing construction documents, bidding project, and construction. As illustrated, the public process is purposefully robust and allows the community numerous opportunities to refine outcomes through each of the outlined steps. e rC AJC>� FOR LIVING, LE.APNING. RAISING FAMILIES & DOING BUSINESS FRED RICHARDs REPURPOSE STUDY PROJECT GOALS The purpose of the study was to engage the public to gather information and ideas about repurposing the Fred Richards site to position the City Council to make an informed decision about its future use. Key principles established for the study include: • Maintaining an open and transparent public process • Seeking creative ideas and options • Providing context and background information to aid the City Council in analyzing and considering repurposing opportunities The consultant spent considerable time gathering background information and listening to various stakeholders and members of the community. Specifically, the team's charge was to: • Understand the community issues and perspectives associated with repurposing the site • Provide a public conduit for generating ideas • Define viable options for City Council consideration • Undertake baseline development cost evaluation • Provide perspective related to findings from the public process • Recommend a plan of action for the City Council to further consider FOR LIVING, LEARNING.. BUSING FAMILIES & DoiNc, Bi SINESS � FRED RicHARDs REPURPOSE STUDY Setting, Trends, and Public Outreach OVERVIEW The following considers the setting for the park, local recreational trends and demands for facilities to meet community needs, and public input into the process. Collectively, these findings shaped planning outcomes and the vision for the park. PLANNING CONTEXT AND The Fred Richards site is located in the southeastern part of the city, as PARK SETTING the following park map illustrates. 1. Alden Park 2. Arden Park 3. Arneson Acres Park 4. Birchcrest Park S. Braemar Park (Courtney Fields) 6. Bredesen Park 7. Browndale Park 8. Centennial Lakes Park 9. Chowen Park 10. Cornelia School Park 11. Countryside Park 12. Creek Valley School Park 13. Edinborough Park 14. Fox Meadow Park 15. Garden Park 16. Heights Park 17. Highlands Park 18. Kojetin Park 19. Lake Edina Park 20. Lewis Park 21. McGuire Park 22. Melody Lake Park 23. Normandale Park 24. Pamela Park J 25. Rosland Park (includes disc golf course) 26. Sherwood Park 27. St. John's Park 28. Strachauer Park 29 Tingdale Park 30. T. Lea Todd Park 31. Frank Tupa Park 32. Utley Park 33. Van Valkenburg Park 34. Walnut Ridge Park 3S. Weber Field Park 36. Williams Park 37. Wooddale Park 38. York Park 39. Yorktown Park (includes skate park) OPEN SPACE AREAS 40. Lincoln Drive Floodplain 41. Garden Park Addition 42. Krahl Hill 43. Moore Property Nep F�()h 1,1\ ING. L LARNt\G W. A71O St. M4. rs" N 30� LJ 18 uALONEVAVENLE s LINCOLN NIM Ettf 33 40 Gp Edln INTERLICHEN BOULEVARDe m Blstark'al 37 a ,r{ O center 3. - mtx,wSF,. f 17 �J/'CJI 32 FDS AiIANE f / f 14 26 „22 � SITE! STM 38 e A �4/� 41 43 34 WRge 6EVLd1 AVDU "RfY,�t Ediiu 29 Senio 27 6 4� fR Ler27 11 L] FeTH STREET 84511LREA ORNE I�(fMAW �"- 6RWISTIEET o It 28 m ®"� tROsttIDYN LI b K a o - llIIll vV g �yy t Cee E� �g AP a g tAFfk VALLEY 0.0AV 1C Y3, /+�: 3 Art Center �W WFST fi6iX 51fEi `& RE o WEST 66TH STFO 661H BImR ,� VALLEVVEW ADAV ;� j IT691Ns J. M Lt ..... WS77aTN 5IREET Cy �. Edina Greenhouse 10 HAIELTNN ROAD Edina Historical M. -On BRAGAAR BOUIEVAAO = 38 i 39 Edina AGOIf Dome 5 NEWSY HILL ROAD - Centennial q Braemar----- -I Lakes Park 5' 4aemar Golf Course x 8 _ Arena VAST ITO SIRIET Richards Golf Cour. 19 K o Ed nhoraugh INN TRIAL BOULEVARD ,• Park 13 Brian YFgpermann Wrional Bun Ra(mdew)ge `�. FRED RICHARDS SITE R_vslu(i Fnniii ii s & Dol,\G Bt-SINLSS 3 FRED RICHARDS REPURPOSE STUDY As a starting point for the public process, baseline considerations included: • Repurposing of the site is a very unique opportunity for a developed city • General consensus that the site will become a park • Size, location, and opportunity suggest the park falls under a "community park" classification, with this process being used to define how the site is best developed to meet community needs and fit into the local park system • Outcome needs to be of high public value and serve a cross-section of residents (neighborhood and larger community) Other key considerations include: • Any park development needs to be compatible with, and complementary to, the adjoining land uses • Connected, but not intrusive, to adjoining properties • Accommodate the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail • Be sensitive to environmental issues (e.g., Nine Mile Creek watershed and stormwater management concerns) If done well, the general consensus is that the park will instantly become an important and perhaps cornerstone component of the local park system. PARK USE TRENDS AND The Park Board provided insights into city-wide and site-specific park FACILITY DEMANDS trends and facility demands. Overall, the common theme was to create • a unique park experience focusing on getting children and families outdoors more, along with providing a pleasant place for nearby business employees to use during work days. Serving the park needs of the entire community versus a select group or neighborhood was also important to the Park Board. FoR I, VING. LEARNING Key considerations and observations include: • Sports fields — addressing the need for field space, especially related to field games like soccer and lacrosse; focus should be on youth age groups; lighting is probably not needed • New forms of recreation — be open to emerging forms of recreation, like Futsal, that would appeal to different age groups • Urban agriculture — expanding on the community garden theme • Outdoor adventure and creative play — providing unique and adventuresome play areas that go beyond typical play equipment; perhaps with a focus on natural play and/or outdoor adventure • Attract hard to reach groups — emphasize a welcoming environment and facilities that appeal to the 15 to 18 year age group, a notoriously challenging group to engage • Develop the park for all seasons — including winter activities, such as cross-country skiing, ice skating and snowshoeing; includes access to a warming house • Accommodate groups — by providing areas for group gatherings and staging events; repurpose clubhouse to accommodate flexible group use; consider additional modest -sized shelters or structures for group use RAISING FAMILIES & DoING Bt smess _� 4 FRED RICHARDS REPURPOSE STUDY • Integrate the regional trail — establishing trailhead amenities; establishing a "bike library" which makes bikes, trikes, and other peddle -power vehicles available for public use; perhaps include bike shop and/or offer repair classes • Buffering — it is as important to buffer views from both inside and outside park • Provide adequate but not excessive parking — includes meeting day-to-day parking needs; also includes collaborating with Pentagon Park developer to meet peak parking needs (i.e., evenings, weekends, and events) with off-site shared parking facilities in select locations • Be cautious about overbuilding — larger scale features such as community center, indoor athletic facilities, competitive pool, youth center, etc. are not well-suited for this park Over the years, the City has undertaken a variety of park and recreation focused surveys to help inform planning decisions on a system -wide basis. Since these surveys have a community -wide and not site-specific focus, caution is needed in applying these findings to individual parks. To that end, integrating the findings of these surveys and this study into the larger system -wide planning effort the City is undertaking (mid-2014/early 2015) is an important recommendation by the Park Board. This will allow the City to fully understand how Fred Richards fits into the larger system and help fine-tune the development program for the park within that context. (The steps in the repurposing process defined on page 1 purposefully accommodates this approach.) Of considerable importance in fine-tuning the master plan is accommodating pertinent demographic changes across the city and how that may affect final development decisions. Within the system -wide context, the development program as currently envisioned for the site does in fact address many of the top priorities defined in the various surveys. For example, the 2006 Community Attitude and Interest Survey focusing on parks and recreation identified walking and biking trails as being very popular, as is creating and/or protecting natural areas and wildlife habitat. The amenities envisioned for the park that focus on families and youth sports are also consistent with survey results. For example, development of outdoor athletic fields was supported by a majority of households. The 2013 City of Edina Survey related to use and rating of park and recreation facilities found 79 percent of household members reported using the trail system during the past year, with 84 percent reported using neighborhood parks. Nearly half (48 percent) of household members reported using the larger community playfields during the past year. The 2014 Grandview Resident Survey finds that residents are very supportive of projects that foster a stronger sense of community. Residents also think the City should create more recreational opportunities, as well as cultural and arts opportunities for people of all ages and incomes. /e \� ,..,� FOR LIVING, I,I:ARNING, RAISING FAMILIES & ))OINO BUSINESS 5 0 FRED RICHARDs REPURPOSE STUDY PUBLIC OUTREACH The public process was open to all individuals and groups to ensure FINDINGS that everyone with an interest in the park had a chance to voice their perspectives. The public outreach process included: • Open public meetings (including comment cards) • Resident -focused site walks • Online comment forms for repurposing Fred Richards • Speak Up, Edina! • Direct emails (to staff) • Interviews with the Pentagon Park developer • Interviews with a cross-section of nearby apartment and local businesses The following captures the overall themes and sub -themes that came out of the collective process and helped shape the development program for the site. COMMON THEMES FROM THE PUBLIC OUTREACH PROCESS Site walks were used as a means to better understand speck concerns of adjacent residents. r�­ FOR LIVING Participants uniformly agree that the site is an important community asset, with the vast majority feeling turning it into a park is the best way forward. There is absolutely no interest in selling the property for development or using the site for stormwater management associated with the commercial redevelopment south of the park. Although individual perspectives vary, creating a well-designed community park that serves all residents best describes how the majority of residents envision the site being repurposed. A number of sub -themes also emerged through the public process, including: • Provide a diversity of uses — offering a friendly and accommodating social environment that is inviting to all residents, with a particular focus on families and children's activities ("kid" friendly) • Create a park that is unique and innovative — go beyond typical features to make the park more interesting and different than a typical park; design for year-round use • Enhance natural qualities of the park — including the appearance of ponds and using more natural buffers • Manage vehicular and pedestrian access — to ensure ease of access and limit disruption to established neighborhoods SPECIFIC ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS Residents in the surrounding neighborhoods have varying opinions on how the property should be repurposed, although there is fairly uniform agreement that a park is the most appropriate end use. As would be expected, residents also have specific and quite reasonable concerns that need to be duly considered as the planning moves forward. Most notable of these include: • Adequately buffer adjacent properties — to minimize sense of encroachment and invasion of privacy; using a naturalized buffer is generally preferred LenRNiNc_ RAISING FANni FS & DoiNG BI SINESS FRED RICHARDs REPURPOSE STUDY Understandably, residents on the north side of the site are concerned about buffering between the park and private properties. • Prevent parking and vehicle access from disrupting the neighborhood — which essentially means providing park access and parking on the south side • Locate active use area (game fields, play structures, etc.) away from residential areas — such as on the south and east sides of the property; use trees and vegetation to help screen these areas • Keep the regional trail on the south side to extent possible — focus on lower -volume and slower paced park -like trails within the park • Limit pedestrian access from the north to select locations — most likely from the cul-de-sac at the end of Kellogg Ave. • Bury power line along the north property line — to improve the aesthetic for the park users and homeowners • Limit lighting to critical areas — do not provide field lighting, and make sure that lighting associated with roads, parking lots, and buildings on the south side of the park are not disruptive or excessive PERSPECTIVES FROM LOCAL BITSINESSES AND PENTAGON PARK DEVELOPER Interviews with local businesses and Pentagon Park developer reinforce or build upon the themes already described. For example, a nearby daycare provider would definitely use a community park, with having access to play equipment, splash pad, trails, community garden, nature -based activities, and even a simple grassy area for active play being very desirable. Adding more natural areas would be great for field trips. Businesses also see much value from the park. Simple, well-designed features like trails, sitting areas, and picnic areas are important for lunchtime and breaks. The park aesthetic itself would lend itself to a pleasant place to go to think and work informally with coworkers in an out -of -office setting. Having easy access to small meeting spaces within the park would be beneficial. Having access to active recreational facilities is also important to a growing number of employers as part of their wellness focus. Seagate, for example, has employee programs for walking, running, soccer, ultimate Frisbee, yoga, and boot camp, to name a few. The Pentagon Park development team also expects future employers and employees will use the park for personal and corporate wellness efforts. Easy access to the regional trail and trailhead facilities enhances bike and walk -to -work commuter programs. Under the right circumstances, local businesses expressed an openness to collaborate on developing outdoor fitness facilities for mutual benefit. One example of this is putting a fitness course along a trail within the park. (Note: Additional discussion related to the Pentagon Park development is provided on page 23.) j/ FOR LIVING, LEARNING, RAISING FAMILIES. DOING BUSINESS 7 FRED RICHARDs REPURPOSE STUDY AREAS OF CONCERN AND CRITIQUE Overall, the public process proved invaluable to identifying issues and defining opportunities, and ultimately shaping the vision master plan. For the most part, participants where respectful of each other, City staff, and elected officials, and participated in good faith in providing input. In the context of good faith, residents found it important to document areas of dissatisfaction — most of which related to the closing the golf course. Key points of feedback include: • Dissatisfaction with the process and timeframe associated with closing the golf course, with many feeling it was rushed and did not allow for real public debate • Mistrust about the City's intent to allow the Pentagon Park developer to use the property for stormwater management • Concern that the City really intends to sell the property for commercial development • Lack of concern for those most affected by changing land uses, especially homeowners that have a lot invested in their properties and are concerned about impacts that reuses, parking, and access will have on them and the neighborhood • Lack of clarity on how the City plans to fund any new park development It also needs to be stated that some nearby residents simply do not accept the fact that the golf course should be closed and feel the City's approach here and in general is ill advised. Hopefully, this process (and the steps going forward) will help alleviate these concerns and build a higher level of trust between all participants. SAFETY AND SECURITY According to Edina Police, there is very little crime going on in local parks — with no robberies, assaults, or weapons violations being recorded. Edina Police feel parks are safe for residents and visitors. Other related research draws similar conclusions. For example, research on trail -related crime conducted by Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC in 2010 yielded the following results: • Respondents (law enforcement officers) consider trails to be safe, with the vast majority (87%) reporting that trails account for less than 5% of all unlawful activity in their jurisdiction, and nearly 50% saying that it is less than 1% • Trespassing on adjacent property is considered low incidence, with issues of more serious crimes against persons or property being very infrequent Police often cite parking lots as their biggest concern, where occasionally theft from cars can be an issue wherever the opportunity for a quick getaway exists. While people's concerns about the security deserves due consideration, parks and trails are actually considered quite safe by police agencies and account for a relatively small percentage of unlawful activity and 2 safety problems. FoR LIvI\c. LLARMNG.. [ZAISJNG TAN-IILIEs & DonNa Bt SINESS g FRED McHARDS REPURPOSE STUDY Vision Master Plan OVERVIEW The vision master plan is the first step in translating public input into FOR LIVING, LEARNING, RAISING FAMILIES &DOING BUSINESS 6 an actual development program for the park. The following describes desired end uses and related physical features envisioned for the park as an outcome of step 1 of the repurposing process. The goal is to set forth a cohesive storyline for the park so that residents, Park Board and City Council have a point of focus for continued refinement as part of the next steps in this process. CREATIVITY AND Discussions during the public process often centered on the desire UNIQUENESS A CORE for a creative and unique design outcome for the park. Irrespective of individual opinion on many site issues, this perspective is clearly a VALUE shared and core value of participants. This step in the process focused on defining the core vision for the site (i.e., community park) and describing the basic design intent associated with the individual functional uses. The detailed master plan phase (step 2) is where much more specific and detailed attention is given to finding creative ways to achieve the vision and creating a compelling high quality park experience. With this in mind, the goal with the forthcoming descriptions is to establish a baseline for discussions to come as the design process moves forward. To further inform the next step in the process, a variety of photos and character sketches are provided to highlight design approaches and themes. While the final design for Fred Richards will be refined under the next step, these are provided to reinforce the importance of quality design in translating the individual elements described in this report into a truly inspired public amenity that will serve the community well for many decades to come. BALANCING ACTIVE The vision master plan strives to balance active recreational uses to USES WITH PRESERVING meet community needs with preserving open space and the site's sense of place and aesthetic qualities. While providing a variety of NATURAL AREAS AND A recreational and educational opportunities is a fundamental goal, SENSE -OF -PLACE showing restraint in the size and location of the built footprint is also an important public value. Under this plan, approximately 35 to 40 percent of the park is envisioned for active recreational uses, such as field games, play areas, and community gathering spaces. The remaining 60 to 65 percent is set aside for more passive, or "quiet," forms of recreation, open space, ponding areas, and buffers. Examples of passive uses include park trails, sitting areas, informal -use lawn areas, and wildflower gardens. FOR LIVING, LEARNING, RAISING FAMILIES &DOING BUSINESS 6 FRED RICHARDS REPURPOSE STUDY STRIVING TO BALANCE ACTIVE USES WITH PRESERVING NATURAL AREAS AND A SENSE—OF—PLACE The vision master plan strives to find the right balance between meeting community needs for active recreational facilities ... ... while still preserving natural open space and the park's sense of place. VISION MASTER PLAN The vision master plan describes a cross-section of features and OVERVIEW amenities envisioned for the park to meet current and anticipated h park and recreational demands. The following graphic Illustrates t e conceptual location of the major use areas and development features envisioned under the vision master plan. cam OPI N P ARM .%ND m i — r 1 ARL P,kSSINI:/ Hibiscz�Ls Ave. - NEi(;n BoRnool) --- --- NATURALIZED BUFFER FO('l .ti { GGIONAL TRAIL sellunl + PA KIy I R.0 L cp NA'ILIZrU.I1,,LU`B(hkFR OPEN PARKLAND Aiztk — NAIURAILIZED/P.ANSIN I, USE 5�JOA e P Connects to v 77th Street OPEN PARKLAND AREA CASUAL RFCREAIIONAL USE 7{ail Connection to � � I filture development Foh I,IVLN(i, 1,1[:1RN'ING, R:A1SING FAMILIES & DOING BUSINESS FIELD GAMES p i PLAY ATRIA COMMUNITY ACTIVITJ S - A' D PSi ENTS AREA Mects(to h Stmt 10 FRED RICHARDs REPURPOSE STUDY Under the plan, each area of the park addresses specific types of active and passive recreational uses to meet the needs of families and individuals. Active recreation refers to team sports or other activities that involves the use of playing fields and play areas. Passive recreation refers to the more personal and often "quiet" activities such as walking, observation, kite flying, yoga, and so forth. Taken together, the recreational features will provide a well-rounded palette of activities for families and individuals to enjoy. The more active recreational uses are envisioned on the southern and eastern sides of the park, largely adjacent to the proposed Pentagon Park redevelopment area. This orientation offers several key benefits: • Concentrates the more active uses where parking and vehicular access can be best accommodated, including the shared use of parking associated with future commercial development on the south and east side of the park • Takes advantage of an existing larger open space, which is not available on the western side where the property is narrower and broken up by existing wetlands • Leverages the repurposing of the clubhouse and maintenance facility to support active use facilities (i.e., group gathering space, restrooms, storm shelter, etc.) • Limits concerns about disrupting existing residential properties along the north property line The more passive recreational uses are envisioned on the northern and western sides of the park, largely adjacent to the established residential neighborhoods. With the existing (and perhaps expanded) ponds, rolling topography, natural and manicured green spaces, this area of the park is well suited for walking paths, overlooks and observation points, and other forms of casual recreation (e.g., kite flying, picnicking). A more passive approach to development also helps provide a distance buffer between the existing residential area and the more active park uses. The design layout for the park includes numerous opportunities to integrate community art, sculptures and other forms of community expression for public display. These types of features are important to creating a unique sense of place in the park that goes beyond the individual recreational features. The following provides an overview of the various development use areas within the park identified on the vision master plan. Each of these are subsequently defined in terms of the type and character of the various uses that would be envisioned within a given zone. Importantly, these descriptions represent a starting point for detailed design. Continued refinement of the ideas, amenity locations, and design approach is both expected and encouraged during step 2 in the process. FOR LIVING, LIf:A6N1\Y;, RaiSiKCi FAMILIES & DOING BUSINESS 11 FRED RicHARDs REPURPOSE STUDY PARKWAY CORRIDOR This corridor includes the parkway and associated parking areas to service the day to day needs of the park. The parkway is an important feature in ensuring ease of vehicular access to the park from the south (and east and west), where much of the use traffic will likely come from. Ease of access from the south is also vital to limiting the extent to which park users access the park from the north — where there is no real option to provide parking and local streets are not intended for heavier day to day traffic. The parkway also allows for shared use of parking lots with adjacent commercial properties during peak use times — most namely evenings and weekends. Example of a parkway design that creates a aesthetically appealing edge to a park. The parkway is envisioned as a shared benefit amenity with the Pentagon Park development area, with encroachment into the park property being limited in order to preserve park space. Heavier traffic volumes (and truck traffic in particular) should be directed toward 77th Street to preserve the character of the parkway and keep traffic volumes lower. The actual design of the parkway will evolve as part of a coordinated effort with the new developments south of the park. This includes determining the points of connection with 77th Street. (Note: through previous action, the City Council determined that a connection to 76th Street on the east side was not desirable.) The parkway will be built as phases of Pentagon Park are approved and developed. Another important aspect of the parkway is its importance in establishing a "park -like" aesthetic edge along the south property line. The parkway also plays a key role in creating a much more appealing buffer between the site and commercial development than is currently the case. The following graphic illustrates the streetscape character envisioned for the parkway. Community art/ Parking bay Parkway with Landscaped Commercial sculpture feature boulevard bouevar Regional trail Sidewalk green buffer development Informal lawn area The parkway serves a functional purpose ofproviding park access andparking. The design character of the parkway is of equal importance in establishing a park -like aesthetic edge to the park, and creating an appealing buffer between the park and the commercial development to the south. Note that the boulevards and landscaped green buffers are envisioned as important landscape features along with beingpart of the overall stormwater managementplan (i.e., bioswales and raingardens to filter runoffi. Onsite parking will be provided to meet day-to-day needs. Peak use (evenings and weekends) parking needs will be met by taking advantage of well-placed designated public parking areas associated with the commercial developments on the south side. (These will be `l' defined as part of future development agreements with the Pentagon Park developer.) I FOR LIVING. LEARNING. f USING FAMILIES & DOING Bt SINESS 12 • FRED RICHARDS REPURPOSE STUDY The vast majority of park -dedicated parking will be accessed from the parkway. The largest parking lot within the park will be located near the active use zones. Additional more limited parking will be provided along the parkway in smaller bays that are integrated into the overall parkway and park design to be as unobtrusive as possible. A small to modest size public parking lot may also be needed off of Parklawn Avenue to service that area of the park. REGIONAL TRAIL As a regional facility, the regional trail serves a broad range of local CORRIDOR and non -local users. The trail will be designed to meet regional standards, which is 10 feet wide and hard -surfaced (typically asphalt pavement). The corridor plan for the regional trail shows it entering the park area from behind the Burgundy Place development on the west side, and exiting along Parklawn on the east side. Between these two points, Three Rivers Park District is flexible as to where the trail is best located relative to the future development of the park and commercial area to the south. The main goal of the District is to ensure the trail through this area is as pleasant and safe a user experience as possible. If well -located and designed, the regional trail will be a positive and important recreational amenity for park visitors and those living or working in the surrounding area. To minimize the potential for use conflicts with other park uses and activities, much of the regional trail will be located on the south side of the park along the parkway corridor. As the character sketch below illustrates, the goal is to create a pleasant trail experience while limiting the amount of park space it consumes. Keeping the regional use traffic on the south side of the park in this area also helps alleviate concerns about encroachment of the regional trail on residential properties on the north side. On the south side of the park, the regional trail will primarily parallel the parkway. As shown, boulevards and green buffers on either side of the trail help create a park -like experience with minimal impacts on other park uses. All crossings with other trails and promenades will be designed with visual cues (e.g., pavement treatments, signage, landscape features) to minimi_e conflicts. Community park I ouuIevara parkway with uses I Regional trail boulevard Green buffer On the east side, the goal is for the regional trail to connect with (but stay on the periphery of) the community gathering, active use, and field games areas. Staying on the periphery of this active use zone is important to minimizing user conflicts. (Note: The alignment through this area is conceptual and will be refined during step 2 — detailed master planning phase.) Trailhead facilities would be integrated into an overall design for this area of the park. Design features that serve the park and regional trail include parking, access to restrooms, sitting �. areas, refreshments, and bike rental. e 11 ..FOR LIVING, LEARNING, RAISING FAMILIES & DOING BUSINESS 13 FRED RICHARDs REPURPOSE STUDY INTERNAL PARK TRAILS, Internal park trails provide a stand-alone park amenity along with PROMENADES providing access to the various park uses. In contrast to the regional trail, these trails have a more intimate and curvilinear character. AND BOARDWALKS Although bike use is not prohibited, park trails are designed more for pedestrian -level and slower -paced use than is the case with the regional trail. Generally, an 8 -foot trail width is envisioned, although wider segments may be needed in busy areas, such as near the active use areas. Narrower trail segments may also be suitable to access overlooks, sitting areas and natural areas. In general, park trails will be hard -surfaced for accessibility and durability, but the surface treatment could be different to distinguish them from the regional trail. In select locations, such as the north arm and in natural areas, narrower aggregate surfaced trails may be also be appropriate. The vision master plan complements the park trails with promenades and boardwalks that add architectural elements and invite casual strolling in the park. These features also provide various opportunities to sit, observe, reflect, and gain access to a variety of activity nodes and park features. The following character sketches illustrate the general character of the park trails and boardwalks that would meander through the park. Park trail Suspended boardwalk and observation Edge boardwalk and sitting area platform Varying landscape features Suspended boardwalk, with observation areas 'mtmo*#Existing natural Pond -edge vegetation boardwalk with Ponding seating As these character sketches illustrate, a combination of park trails and boardwalks are envisioned to provide a variety of casual trail experiences throughout the park. Access to the internal park trails will be primarily from the parkway ocorridor, south parking lots, and regional trail. More limited trail access �— from Parklawn (east side) and Kellogg Avenue (north side) is also envisioned. Private drive Eliminating the cul-de-sac at the end of Kellogg is a possibility to help ___ ___ access manage pedestrian access and reduce concerns about excessive parking Boulevard - along the street. Final determination as to the desire and practicality New trail ---!- of this approach will be considered as part of the detail design phase. - (Additional input from affected property owners along Kellogg will be needed.) FOh Livi'Vi. Lr_-\r.Mvc. R.-aisi\c FAn-ui irs & DoiW Busi\ess 14 FRED RICHARDs REPURPOSE STUDY COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES AND EVENTS AREA The existing clubhouse is of good quality and can be reasonably repurposed for described park uses. Field games area Flexible -use lawn gathering space Outdoor courtyard and event space Repurposed clubhouse Ponding Parkway r e The main design goal of the community activities area is to repurpose the clubhouse and create compelling surrounding outdoor spaces to complement it. These indoor -outdoor spaces are envisioned to accommodate a wide -range of activities and user groups. Examples include: • Special events • Organized group gatherings • Social gatherings, such as weddings and family reunions • Theater or music in the park (small scale) The community activities area is envisioned to be an appealing place to spontaneously gather, socialize, and simply hang out. In this context, the aesthetics of the area, sense of place, and viewsheds across the park are all important to creating a space people want to use all days of the week. The design theme established for this area will also influence the design character and quality expectation for the rest of the park. The clubhouse is envisioned to be repurposed to a flexible -use and programmable community space for events and group gatherings. Day-to-day, the restrooms and possibly vending will be available to park users. In winter, the facility can be used as warming house or a place to organize for outdoor activities, such as informal skating, snowshoeing and cross-country skiing. The facility will also serve as a de facto trailhead for the regional trail. The clubhouse building is of good quality and well maintained. Architecturally, the aesthetics of the building warrant updating for park purposes. The color, exterior facade treatments, etc. will all evolve to be consistent with design themes that emerge for this area of the park, and the park in general. Community activities and events area Off-site overflow parking FOIt LIVING. LEARNING. RAISING FAMILIES & I)OING BUSINESS The outdoor spaces in this area are of equal importance. Flexible outdoor spaces for gatherings, casual socializing, and just hanging out are imagined. Design features include arbors, ornamental planting, benches, etc. Art pieces, sculptures, and other forms of community expression are also appropriate design features as part of an overall high quality design theme. The graphic illustrates the general location of the design components and character of the community use area. 15 FRED RicHARDs REPURPOSE STUDY ADVENTURE PLAY AREA The major objective of this use area is to robustly engage youth and teens in appealing non -programmed outdoor activities. This includes providing a variety of innovative play and outdoor adventure components that appeal to age groups from the very young through the 15 to 18 year old age group – the latter of which being a recognized challenging group to engage. Field games is area — Adventure play area Community activities and events area l e For the younger age groups, envisioned play components include theme -based adventure -type play structures at a community park -scale. The creativity of the design is key to making this a park feature that children will be eager to return to time and again. The vision master plan identifies the general location for the play area. Actual features, shape and size will be determined during detail design phase, with additional input being needed from targeted groups. The accompanying photos are just examples of how wide-ranging the possibilities are for imaginative approaches to play areas that goes beyond traditional play structures. Character sketch illustrates theeg neral location of adventure play area. Imaginative play can be as simple as a small raft in a shallow pond (upper right) to site-specific designs that fit the overall design theme for the park (above). Incorporating "active participation "features (right) is also an increasingly popular approach to play areas. All of these examples highlight the increasing sophistication of creating play areas that are fun, stimulating and educational. For. LnING, LEARNING. RAISING FAMILIFIS & DOING BUSINESS 16 • FRED RICHARDS REPURPOSE STUDY Adding a splash pad for younger children would be another interesting play feature that expands the recreational value of the play area. For older age groups, providing a challenging outdoor adventure -based recreational area space is envisioned. Although not an exhaustive list, examples of the types of features envisioned include: • Slacklines • Bouldering rock and/or climbing wall • Ropes ladder and/or course, along with cargo nets • Balance logs or beams Slacklining is one those unique recreational activities that appeal to multiple generations, and can serve to bring people of various backgrounds and age groups together to have fun and socialize. FIELD GAMES AREA Youth -oriented fields for sports like soccer, are in demand across the city. The proximity of the adventure play areas to one another and other park uses is an important design consideration. Providing adequate separation between age groups to avoid conflicts is obviously important. Conversely, the design should still allow for different age groups to observe the activities of other groups as part of the socialization aspect of the park experience. Designing these areas for ease of monitoring is also important, especially when a parent has children of varying ages and interests using different play features. Adequately buffering the noise from the play areas is also an important design consideration. The field games area covers an area of 5 to 6 acres, with the final acreage being determined as specific community facility needs are refined through the design process. The final footprint of the field games area will also be influenced by the shape and size of adjoining elements, especially the play and outdoor adventure use and the north arm areas. The field game area is envisioned as a well-maintained green space surrounded by trees and ponds. Field access, parking, and restrooms will all be on the south side of the field games area. Trees and natural vegetation will be used along the northern edge of this area to buffer adjacent properties and dissuade people from entering the field games area from the north side of the park. o e 7 f FOR LIVING, LEARNING, RAISING FAMILIES & DOING BUSINESS 17 FRED RICHARDS REPURPOSE STUDY Youth -oriented field games are one of the best ways to bringfamilies together in a park setting. As a baseline, the field games area is intended to address youth -oriented sports such as soccer, lacrosse, and perhaps football. Although not a full solution, providing field space on this site helps address the unmet demand for more sports fields throughout the community. For reference, space requirements for standard soccer field sizes include: • Regulation full size — 1.75 to 2.0 acres • Intermediate — 1.0 to 1.25 acres • Junior size — 0.5 to 0.75 acre Taking it a step further, accommodating other forms of established or emerging field activities is worthy of consideration. Examples of this include: • WifHeball (0.25 to 0.50 acre) — alternative to baseball and softball for smaller field spaces and oriented toward young children and family or group fun Puckelball is one example of one-off twist to a common game that would be unique to Edina, and likely Minnesota. OPEN PARKLAND AREA The open parkland area is all about creating pleasant places for people to be outside doing casual recreational activities or just sitting in the park enjoying the day. • Futsal (0.25 to 0.50 acre) — game played on a hard surfaced, basketball sized court with a smaller, heavier low bounce ball • Sand volleyball and footvolly (0.10 acre) — latter is sand volleyball without using hands • Puckelball (from Sweden) — basically entails adding moguls or rolling grade to a soccer field to create a very unique dimension to playing a soccer ball Other important design considerations related to the field games area include irrigation, field grades, and soil type (i.e. sand/peat or basic topsoil). Although considered, providing lighting was not widely accepted as appropriate for this community park setting. Providing quiet spaces for casual recreation and simply enjoying being outdoors in a beautiful setting is the theme for this area. Passive uses — such as walking along a well-designed trail or promenade, or sitting on a bench overlooking a pond — is a prime focus for this area, as is "quiet" active recreational and exercise uses. Examples of the latter include places for yoga classes, to toss a frisbee, or fly a kite. Key elements envisioned for this area include: • Curvilinear walking trails (that are separate and distinguishable from the regional trail) • Promenades with community art, sculptures, and other forms of community expression • Sitting areas, with shade structures, arbors, and/or vegetation • Lawn areas for casual recreation and informal play • Flexible -use activity nodes and structures for outdoor recreation (e.g., yoga classes) and casual gatherings (i.e., senior groups, group picnicking) The master plan view and character sketches on the next page conceptually illustrate how design creativity and the use of various design elements (i.e., promenades, community art, sculptures, etc.) are important to creating a unique park identify and high quality (.c ez �� community park experience. Fon LiviNG, LEARNING. R . AISING FAMILIES & DOING BuSInNEss 18 � 0 FRED RICHARDS REPURPOSE STUDY Park trails Naturalized \ buffers Naturalized" parkland Park trails Enhanced ponding Passive use parkland Open lawn for casual recreation Activity node/ structure Park feature/art/ sculpture node Promenade Regional trail Edge boardwalk w/sitting areas Parkway The vision master plan illustrates a diversity of park use areas, activity nodes, and features that can be incorporated into a final design to create a compelling and unique park setting. Open parkland for Seating area with Internal trail Boardwalk Open parkland casual uses shade structures across wetlands recreation structure Ponding area As these cross-section character sketches illustrate, the park offers numerous opportunities to create a variety of compelling outdoor spaces to meet defined community needs and provide a diversity of park experiences. /" e ,J( l`7 / FOR LIVING, LEARNING. RAISING FAMH IFS & DoiNa BUSINESS 19 FRED RICHARDS REPURPOSE STUDY In select locations, such as the far west end or north arm, using narrower, aggregate surfaced trails may be an appropriate alternative to paved park trails. Naturalized buffers around periphery of north arm Butterfhi wildflower gardens Open lawn area for neighborhood .play Park trails Naturalized buffers As the overall vision master plan illustrates, the western part of the open parkland area is envisioned as a naturalized passive use area with a limited palette of developed features. Key features in this area include ponds, expanded natural areas, and simple walking paths with sitting areas and observation areas — the latter of which being placed to take advantage of expansive views across the park. Expanding the existing ponding areas is envisioned to enhance the park aesthetic and habitat for wildlife, along with improving stormwater management and better managing flooding concerns associated with the Nine Mile Creek watershed. (Note: this relates to addressing City of Edina water management concerns, and does not address any stormwater management issues associated with the Pentagon Park redevelopment. The latter is the responsibility of the developer.) The north arm area of the park is currently an undefined and undeveloped space. Uses envisioned for this area are consistent with the larger open parkland area to the west, albeit focused on neighborhood play space and quiet walking trails. Features such as a butterfly or wildflower gardens or colorful prairie exhibits would add interest and provide a pleasant place to walk or sit and observe nature. Smaller open lawn areas would provide space for informal neighborhood use. Specific improvements envisioned for this area include: • Continuation of the internal park trails — perhaps a bit narrower and soft -surfaced for those seeking a more casual, natural trail experience • Adding to and improving buffering between the park and residential properties • Addressing poor drainage and grade issues to make the central part of this area more usable and less prone to maintenance issues; perhaps use rain gardens to help manage stormwater in a more appealing manner • Providing open lawn areas for casual outdoor play, with a neighborhood use focus • Providing a smaller, neighborhood -focused play structure (would complement, not duplicate, the larger adventure play area) (During the planning process, developing the north arm for urban agriculture was considered as a potential alternative use. This is considered in more detail on page 22.) NATURALIZED BUFFERS Naturalized buffers are envisioned along the entire northern property line to create an appealing edge to the park and demarcate the park from adjacent residential properties. The buffers will be designed to mutually benefit park users and adjacent homeowners. From a park user's perspective, the goal is to preserve the park's sense of place while walking along a trail, and to avoid feeling like one is intruding into someone's backyard. .Ce)y FOR LIVING, LEARNING, RAISING FAMILIES & DOING BUSINESS iff FRED RICHARDS REPURPOSE STUDY As these cross-section character sketches illustrate, the goal is to adequately buffer adjacent properties from park activities for mutual benefit. The exact design treatment along the property line will vary depending on site-specific circumstances and preferences. From a homeowner's perspective, the goal is to maintain a sense of privacy while still providing select views of the park. Although a costly initiative, burying the power line running along the north property was supported by residents. Using vegetation to reduce the extent to which lights from the Pentagon Park area can be seen should be part of the buffer design. The following character sketches illustrate several options in terms of buffer treatments, which would be used based on actual circumstances and homeowner input. Dense natural buffer to more fully screen private properties from park development Viewshed from property riewshed from park Park trail Managed natural buffer to allow for select views into the park from private properties Viewshed from property Viewshed from park Park trail As the cross-sections illustrate, maintaining separation between residential property lines and built features, like trails, is important for park users and homeowners. In general, 50 or more feet is a common baseline for minimum separation, but the exact distance is situational. Grades along the property line, density of vegetation, elevations of adjoining houses and decks, etc. all factor into final design decisions and separation requirements. FOR LIVING, LEARNING, RAISING FAMILIES... DOING BUSINESS 21 • • FRED RICHARDs REPURPOSE STUDY REPURPOSING THE MAINTENANCE BUILDING URBAN AGRICULTURE AREA (ALTERNATIVE NORTH ARM USE) The urban agriculture idea builds upon the well-established community garden theme. Additional examples and ideas can be found at: • foodtankcom/news/2014/02/capital-city- farming-l0-urban-agriculture projects- in-washington-dc • csmonitor.com/World/ Making -a -d fere nce/Change- Agent/2014/0603/12-agrihoods-aim-to- make farm -to -table -living -mainstream • designntrend coral articles/11703/20140314/argitopias-are- popping-up-all-over-the place. him • jonesvalleyteachingfarm.org/our-story/ our -impact/ . FOR l.,IVING, LEARNING A variety of options are available for repurposing the existing maintenance building. Using the building for storage, maintenance, and restrooms is a clear option. Providing space for other uses — such as bike rental, storage, and maintenance classes — also needs to be considered as the detail design for this area takes shape. Using part of the building for an indoor -outdoor adventure play area offers some potential to expand play options. (Note: This approach needs more consideration as part of the City's system -wide parks planning effort to determine need and viability.) As with the clubhouse, the maintenance building is of good quality and in good repair. Here too the architectural aesthetics of the building warrant updating for park purposes. The color, exterior facade treatments, etc. will all evolve to be consistent with design themes that emerge for the clubhouse. As previously noted, developing the north arm for urban agriculture was considered as an alternative use in lieu of open parkland. The following outlines that discussion. The urban agriculture idea builds upon the community garden program that has taken root in many communities around the country. A community garden is essentially where a city provides small plots for residents to grow produce for personal consumption. The urban agriculture program takes this to the next level in which growing produce can be for personal consumption, resale at farmers markets (which could be held in the park), sold locally, or used for cooking classes. Adding an educational component, such as how to grow produce, is also commonly integrated into the urban agriculture theme. Providing a space and/or structure for healthy eating cooking classes builds upon this theme. Accommodating organized farm -to -table events within the park is also an opportunity. Specific elements and facilities related to this use area include: • Fenced agricultural field area — 2 to 4 acres • Shed and shelter structure for storing equipment and organizing activities • Utility service — water, electricity, etc. Taking this one step further, the shed and shelter structure could be upgraded to three -season shelter that could provide indoor/outdoor space for classes, farm -to -table events, and general group use. RAISINa FANIIIALS & DOING BI SINLY, - 22 11 FRED RICHARDs REPURPOSE STUDY Implementation Considerations OVERVIEW There are a variety of implementation considerations that will impact Discussions with the development team suggest a common vision of repurposing the Fred as a high-value community park is both achievable and mutually beneficial. This common vision is even reflected in the developer's overarching theme of "wellness" for the Pentagon Park redevelopment. The City's own tag line of Edina being a place for "living, learning, raising families and doing business" reinforces the importance of the private development area and public park be designed as complementary aspects of the larger community form. The following outlines the key provisions of the City's resolution granting rezoning of the Pentagon Park redevelopment area, along with some key points of focus that came out of this process. RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY REZONING TO PUD FOR THE PENTAGON PARK REDEVELOPMENT AREA A resolution granting preliminary rezoning to PUD and an overall development plan was approved by the City Council in March of 2014. The rezoning resolution extensively covers the findings and conditions of approval that will guide the development. Key provisions of the resolution include that the land use proposal will: • Be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan • Meet the intent of the PUD, with the site guided as "Office Residential" (which is a transitional area between higher intensity districts and residential districts); primary uses include offices, housing, limited service uses, limited industrial, parks and open space • Create a more efficient and creative use of the property; this includes better vehicle and pedestrian connections, enhanced green space and ponding, a mixture of land uses, improved architecture �! and sustainability, and shared parking with the park I OR LAVING, LEARNING, RAISING FAMILIES DOM, BUSINESS 23 the repurposing of the Fred Richards site from a golf course to a community park. The following outlines the most predominant of these at a vision master plan level. Each of these, plus other considerations, will have to be more fully vetted and addressed during the detail master planning step in the process. INTERRELATIONSHIP The City and Pentagon Park development team have been working AND COLLABORATION together for some time on a redevelopment plan for the commercial area south of the park. The development team has also been engaged WITH PENTAGON PARK in this planning process to ensure mutual understanding of issues and REDEVELOPMENT desired outcomes associated with repurposing the Fred Richards site. Discussions with the development team suggest a common vision of repurposing the Fred as a high-value community park is both achievable and mutually beneficial. This common vision is even reflected in the developer's overarching theme of "wellness" for the Pentagon Park redevelopment. The City's own tag line of Edina being a place for "living, learning, raising families and doing business" reinforces the importance of the private development area and public park be designed as complementary aspects of the larger community form. The following outlines the key provisions of the City's resolution granting rezoning of the Pentagon Park redevelopment area, along with some key points of focus that came out of this process. RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY REZONING TO PUD FOR THE PENTAGON PARK REDEVELOPMENT AREA A resolution granting preliminary rezoning to PUD and an overall development plan was approved by the City Council in March of 2014. The rezoning resolution extensively covers the findings and conditions of approval that will guide the development. Key provisions of the resolution include that the land use proposal will: • Be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan • Meet the intent of the PUD, with the site guided as "Office Residential" (which is a transitional area between higher intensity districts and residential districts); primary uses include offices, housing, limited service uses, limited industrial, parks and open space • Create a more efficient and creative use of the property; this includes better vehicle and pedestrian connections, enhanced green space and ponding, a mixture of land uses, improved architecture �! and sustainability, and shared parking with the park I OR LAVING, LEARNING, RAISING FAMILIES DOM, BUSINESS 23 FRED RICHARDS REPURPOSE STUDY Under the resolution, the proposed project must also meet the pertinent goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, including: • Design public open and green linkages that bring both amenity and positive image to neighborhoods, corridors, and business precincts • Design public streets to serve not only vehicles but also pedestrians, people with mobility aids, and bicycles • Create walkable streets that foster an active public life; streets that are energized by their proximity to a vibrant mix of activity -generating uses • Preserve and make accessible natural areas and features as part of a comprehensive open space network • Within larger redevelopment sites, promote a fine-grained and interconnected network of local streets and paths, encouraging pedestrian circulation and providing a choice of access points • Encourage infill/redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and/or corridor context and character • Stay committed to the "podium" height concept, with podium being defined as the part of a building that abuts the street, or provides the transition to residential neighborhoods, parks, and other sensitive land uses; the intent with the concept is to create a consistent street wall envelope and a comfortable pedestrian environment KEti' POINTS OF FOCUS FOR CONTINUED COLLABORATION With respect to the Fred Richards site, continued collaboration between the City and developer on infrastructure development and design of t T i buildings and streetscapes is imperative. Key points of focus going forward include: • Designing the parkway to provide ease of access to the park and development area, with the roadway being located on the southern edge of the park with minimal encroachment into park acreage; the aesthetic qualities of the parkway's streetscape should complement the design themes and character established for the park • Building facades in the new development should provide a aesthetically pleasant backdrop as viewed from within the park and along the parkway; this includes an appealing architectural style, ample trees and vegetation, and limiting lighting impacts on and across the park • The park site and Pentagon Park development will independently manage their own stormwater — although this does not preclude seeking mutually beneficial stormwater management outcomes (as determined by the City to be in its best interest) The provisions of the City's rezoning resolution along with the key points of focus listed above provide a clear direction and set of expectations on the interrelationship between the park and the Pentagon Park development area to the south. The importance of the design for these two areas being of high quality and complementary cannot be overstated. Doing so is imperative for the park to retain a compelling sense of place. .� a FOR LViNu, LEARNING. RAiswc FAnIu.iEs & Doi\o 13l SINESS 24 FRED RICHARDs REPURPOSE STUDY TECHNICAL CONDITIONS AND CHALLENGES INCLUDES NINE MILE CREED WATERSHED RELATED CONSIDERATIONS) Although well-maintained and visually appealing, the poor soils across the park will have to be addressed as part of any park development. Through insightful design, the aesthetic value, water quality and overall function of the site's wetlands and ponds can be much improved. Aesthetically, the Fred Richards site offers a very appealing setting for a community park. Unfortunately, development of the site brings with it some significant technical challenges that will have to be addressed. Most pressing of these is dealing with poor site soils, protecting wetlands, and addressing stormwater management issues that go well beyond the site itself. With respect to site soils, peat and clay predominant across the site. These soils are prone to saturation and general instability, making it more difficult and costly to build structures and otherwise keep the park in top form. Even keeping the golf course in good playable shape required extensive use of soil -stabilizing fabric underlayment across much of the site. Going forward, accommodating site soils will undoubtedly be a factor in design decisions pertaining to the type and location of site features. Practical limitations on site grading will likely be one of the most pressing issues as development plans take shape. With respect to wetlands, all of the current ponds and waterways found across the site are protected under wetland conservation laws. Depending on type and quality, any relocation requires mitigation, even if done onsite. Depending on independent value assessments, mandated replacement ratios can range from 2 1/4 up to 9 acres for every 1 displaced wetland acre. From a practical and philosophical standpoint, every attempt needs to made to avoid displacing the existing ponds and wetlands. Water management issues associated with the larger Nine Mile Creek watershed further complicates onsite stormwater and wetland protection issues. Succinctly stated, there is a need for additional stormwater management capacity throughout the watershed — including the Fred Richards site. This relates to both water quality and water volume. The increasingly routine occurrence of flooding across parts of the golf course illustrate that this issue is not going away and that this site needs to be part of the broader stormwater management solution. If done well, increasing the surface area of ponds within the park would be beneficial in several important ways. First, increasing the size and scale of the ponding areas would obviously help address the stormwater management issues previously defined. Second, and of perhaps greater importance to the park user, a well-designed expanded system of ponds and wetlands could further enhance the aesthetic qualities of the park. Well -shaped and located ponds can provide additional "edges" to work off of when designing trails, providing sitting areas, and creating different spaces within the park. Third, well-designed ponds and wetlands can dramatically increase the value of the wildlife habitat within the park. For example, providing wider naturalized buffers along the ponds over what is currently the case would greatly improve habitat quality and quantity. Typically, a higher quality buffer needs be 30 to 60 feet wide, depending on the site-specific circumstances. Ce F(W Lig I R.vsiNa Fa_\iit_ii_s & DOING BLisim ss _ 25 FRED RICHARDs REPURPOSE STUDY • Taken together, the potential benefits of adding ponding as part of an overall design can be significant — both at the park level and larger watershed level. For reference, the following graphic illustrates the extent to which existing ponds and wetlands have been expanded as represented on the vision master plan shown on page 10. • The blue areas represent expanded ponding relative to existing ponding and wetland areas. Note that the final shape and size of ponds will be determined during the detailed master plan phase of the project. COST PROJECTIONS FOR The forthcoming cost projections provide a range of potential costs REPURPOSING SITE associated with repurposing the site from a golf course to a community park. The projections are based on a combination of site-specific development issues and professional judgments based on developments of similar characteristics. The projections are based on 2014 dollars, which will require inflation adjustments over time. (Also note that 2014 was a volatile year in project bidding for similar work (i.e., bids have been coming in higher than expected), with a fair amount of uncertainty remaining in the marketplace going forward.) At the vision master plan level, the level of plan detail combined with market uncertainties pose inherent limitations in projecting potential costs. The intended use of the cost projections is to aid the City in developing an overall funding and implementation strategy, including: • Defining the magnitude of the investment needed to develop the park FOR Lig-iNc. Li:Ahuwc. RAISINc FAnIu.ila & DOING I3uslnEss 26 FRED RicHARDs REPURPOSE STUDY • Comparing the relative cost of a basic level of development with that of a more robust approach that more fully achieves the vision as set forth in this plan • Prioritizing and budgeting for capital improvement program COST ESTIMATING CATEGORIES For budgeting purposes, the cost estimate is broken down into categories. Several categories are associated with city -funded development, and several categories relate to work completed by others or the city acting in partnership with others. Others include the Pentagon Park developers, Three Rivers Park District, and Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. City -funded development categories include: • Baseline park development package — includes the core elements of repurposing the park from a golf course to a community park; generally, this includes the community activities and events area, adventure play area, and basic field games area; open parkland area development is limited to trails and a limited palette of other site amenities, such as sitting areas • Open parkland area enhancements package — includes the major development elements in this area, such as the promenades, boardwalks, developed activity nodes, art and sculpture, etc.; also includes some enhancements to the community activities area • Field games area enhancements package — includes upgrading the fields from topsoil surfacing to sand -based fields and related elements, such as underdrainage Partnership or by -others funded categories include: • Parkway package — includes the roadway and related streetscape elements; the presumption is that the Pentagon Park developer will be the lead and primarily responsible for this work • Regional trail package — includes the regional trail and related development; the presumption is Three Rivers Park District will be the lead and responsible for this work • Pond expansion, stormwater management, and water quality improvements package — includes expanding ponds and related; City may be responsible for costs, but as part of a larger Nine Mile Creek watershed planning strategy COST ESTIMATE RANGES The following summarizes the cost ranges associated with each to the listed categories. Cost ranges are provided due to pricing and quantity variabilities associated with this level of planning. Cost ranges include 15% add-on for testing, design and survey fees, along with 2% for geotechnical testing and permitting. 'INA n o e FoR L[VING.. LEARNING, Ra,isiNG FAMILIES DOING I3usiNi:ss 27 U FRED RICHARDS REPURPOSE STUDY City -Funded Development Categories: Baseline park development package $2,966,000 to $3,559,000 Open parkland area enhancements package _ $2,897,000 to $3,476,000 Field games area enhancements package $ 713,000 to $ 855,000 Total $6,576,000 to $7,890,000 Costs associated with partnership or by -others funded categories are more broadly considered since others play a lead or partnership role in developing design solutions. For planning context, it is expected that the parkway package will be in the $2 million plus range. The regional trail package will be in the $500,000 plus range (although this will be highly influenced by the need for bridges and dealing with soil conditions). Pond expansion, stormwater management, and water quality improvements package is highly variable and dependent on overall size of the ponding expansion. For budgeting purposes, $1 million is a reasonable starting point, with many factors influencing the final costs for this type of work. Also note that setting aside a 10% to 20% cost contingency is recommended for each of the above categories to guard against unknowns in final design outcomes and changes in the bidding environment at the point of development. e FOR LMNG, LEARNING, RAISING FAMILIES & DOING BUSINESS W. NOTES FROM PUBLIC PROCESS VISION MASTER PLAN FRED RICHARDS REPURPOSE STUDY CITY OF EDINA 10/01/14 �� FOR LIA'ING, LtARNING. RAISING FAMILIES & DOING BL SISESS Comments from 1" Public Open House for Fred Richards Repurpose Process — June 12`h • Do not want trail close to residential property • Want kid friendly park • Social environment — but not fields • Issues of funding (TIF) • Concerns: want quiet buffer — no noisy athletic fields, want "wildlife" type of park; no overhead lighting • Concern: safety & security — want fence to south to be kept till development occurs • Want ped & bike trails • Want NE area to stay as green space — retain water features; kids play area (currently no place for kids to play in neighborhood) • Want access to park from south • Desire to accommodate active uses • On east side — remain green space; tennis court or other active use would be nice for businesses to use during day • Concern — access of trail from west • Question: Has a budget been set? • Revenue generation opportunities should be pursued • Floated out Tin Fish idea — "No!" • Would Seagate& other businesses contribute $$$ ? • Would like to see where city parks are currently & what is in them • Do not want lighting • Stormwater — need to do due diligence — mistrust city & developer • Dog & Pony show! • Keep tree cover; add trees where possible — especially by commercial rea • Keep wildlife • Provide adequate parking; no parking along streets for park use • IF new water features are added keep away from residential areas • Model = Bredeson Park • Centennial Lakes = too much • Belief that Pentagon Park will use park for stormwater management. Mistrust. NOTE: floodplain area • Concern — lack of budget • Want horse therapy either in Edina or someplace nearby • Need green space for kid play • Kids on east side have no place to play • Make north side a wildlife barrier for residents • EGs: NYC & Buffalo, NY have equestrian use in heart of city; truly unique opportunity for city 1 • Access to park is limited. How will people access other than from south side? Some want east side access; others do not • Need to provide access from north but respect residents • Owner of apts. On Parklawn — need for play area. Water mgt. been issue in past. What is the plan? • Look at old park from 30 years ago — had fields • Want family to be able to use park. This means serves many. Desire for trails & play area • Like "We Can Ride" as volunteer opportunity • Want winter use — groomed XC skiing • Soccer club (3000+ players) — need fields — especially for K-4 • Play area plus restrooms • House on Kellogg on cul-de-sac: major activity should be on south end. Concern re: parking along Kellogg • Opposed to fields. To be done right would need artificial turn & is opposed to this • General traffic and parking concerns • Water mgt = huge issue • Trails & natural areas desired • Why do we have to provide play area for apt. kids? They should have to provide their own area • Idea: urban farm — more than community garden; would be revenue generator. Opportunity for teaching & volunteering • Edina -based horse therapy program exists for adults & kids with autism • Not against horse therapy just serves too narrow of a population • Horse idea = concerns about parking & odor 0 2 Summary of Comment Cards from June 12`h Public Open House (n=40 ) & online Comments Batch 1: • Green space, trees, flowers, natural beauty, wildlife • Equestrian use • No equestrian use • Green space for youth activities — soccer, baseball & softball diamonds • All green space; no development except bathroom facilities • Belief that Pentagon Park will have to use Fred Richards for stormwater mgt • Playground; kids in neighborhood need place to play • Bike trail connections • Urban farm/community gardens • Perimeter bike trail; meandering walking paths • Sitting areas • Lawn games • XC ski trails • Maze, or circular path for walking meditation • Concerned that "We Can Ride" group got unfair access • Need heavy citywide input on final design • Athletic facilities for youth with concessions • Tennis courts w/lights, sand volleyball, basketball courts, badminton courts, BBQ gas grills, jungle gym • Bathrooms, shower facilities • Dog park • No additional parking or traffic; noise is a concern • Park must serve all • Keep golf course • Refuge for people and wildlife • Wading pool, splash pad • MTB trail system • Signs for park closing at night; security in general • Issues with crime — esp. as related to adjacent apartment complexes. "Many residents adjacent to the Fred believe a park redevelopment on the Fred would create a gateway for the drug dealing, prostitution and theft that exists in the apartments to spread to the park as well as our neighborhood." (For further info see email from Marie Sullivan - hardcopy) • Not a Centennial Lakes • Need a budget • Restaurant in clubhouse • Connect with Cornelia • Wading pool • Park for all — young & old • Play structures • Connectivity to 9 mile creek bike path • Once it's built, advertise it — esp. to those in apts who may not be plugged into conventional ways of obtaining information • Multi -use park — rectangular fields (soccer & lacrosse), sand volleyball, skate park, play area, warming house • Youth athletic complex for soccer etc • Gazebos • Surround area with walking/exercise path • Community garden, picnic areas to rent for gatherings • Putting course, chiping/pitching • No equestrian • Dog park • Equestrian center — support for We Can Ride • Need a better process for the Fred • Numerous links to active lifestyle ideas; benefits of (see June 25`h email from Deanne Miller) • Make sure whatever is built is self-sufficient • Not another park with soccer fields, hockey rinks and play equipment • Turn Fred into a biology lab. (See Bob Rofidal email dated June 13) • Continue the Centennial Lakes theme • Urban farm (Steve Curry email June 17`h) • Archery range Notes from various stakeholder conversations Day Care — July 7th • Would definitely use a community park; esp. if they relocate across the street as part of redevelopment • Like: splash pad, perimeter trail, community garden, nature -based park, grassy area for active play (eg, soccer), field trips etc • Note: staff currently go to Normandale to walk or jog • 175 kids; 40 staff Cafe Inc — July 7th — Store Manager will pass request for feedback on to Chet Funk Briarcliff Apts — July 7th — Dean Akins 952.941.2400 • Sent letter to Ann & Park Board advocating for a golf course school to teach kids the game of golf; life-long sport. Organization = First Tee (example) • He had no comments about any other type of park use. He feels Edina has spent lots on hockey, why not golf? Willow Greens Condos — July 7th — Britt 952.239.7835 • Spoke with Britt briefly. Per her request, sent email outlining various ways to provide input Seagate — July 21" — Pete Wentzell 952 402 7169 (& 2 staff from fitness center) • Seagate has programs for staff such as: running, soccer, ultimate Frisbee, yoga, boot camp, etc. Soccer & ultimate Frisbee are lunch time clubs. They would be interested in open field space. Soccer could use youth -size fields. • Interest in regional trail ; they have about 40 bike commuters and Seagate is difficult to commute to via bike • Have discussed putting a fitness course around Seagate property; security issues would preclude non -employees from using such a facility. They are considering installing a fitness course in about 12 months. They would be interested in talking with the City about possibly collaborating on this effort; where the course would be at the Fred and Seagate employees would use it. Potential for cost-sharing (omit this from report). • Concern: park users wanting to park at Seagate. Security issue. They would be towed. • Hockey rink on ponds??? • Departments have employee gatherings — interest in volleyball and/or bocce ball. Plus grills • Some interest in the community garden idea. Notes from Park Board Work Session on July 81" • It is as important to buffer view from inside park as from outside park — buffering, berms etc • Question: What is the opportunity for shared parking with businesses? • Per benchmark study, Edina needs: (* indicates park board member felt these amenities are most appropriate for Fred Richards) o Community center o Indoor athletic facilities o Soccer fields* o Dog park (have one in NW Edina)* o Competition pool o Youth activities center o Performing arts center o Area to stage events — eg: fun run (creates parking needs) o Community garden* • Check out Queens Co. Park/Farm (NYC) — explore idea of something more than a community garden but less than a farm • Need to evaluate uses of all Edina parks — How does Fred fit? • Check out 2006 Parks Study • Consider natural play area — moveable & buildable pieces • Themes: unique, get kids outdoors • Fields for 5-11 year olds needed (no lights needed). Note: if only for practice (vs. practice + games) the traffic is reduced by about 50% • Need opportunities for 15-18 year olds. EG: warming house for XC skiing/snowshoeing. Bike shop that is run by youth volunteers. Farm stuff. Welcoming environment • DECA could run bike shop or coffee shop • Consider bike library; not just Nice Ride. Note: there is a charitable group in Minnetonka that does this) They offer bikes, trikes, etc • Need tennis courts • Check out Futsal • Disc golf • Keep changing demo's in mind — immigrant populations recreate differently — esp. picnic space • If possible, create a connection to Cornelia School • Comments from June 21St Site Walk Note: There were about 20+ people in attendance at various times • Do not want parking area at cul-de-sac on north side OR a thru street • East side — entrance by Edina Lake trail — want buffer; keep woods. Amount of water is typical after good rain. Note: lots of concrete buried underneath area. • Desire for natural buffer between residents & park • RE: buildings along Parklawn — can we get them to change the lighting so it does not shine in people's homes? • Keep traffic away from cul-de-sac area on north • Some residents prefer buffer over view; some want buffer + view (Art prefers view) • Question: Isn't demand for trails in Edina already met? Want balance between residents and Edina overall • Would like to bury powerline • Keep trees on south end in order to block view of Pentagon Park buildings • Prefer parking on Pentagon property • A while ago, Council said a parkway or any road would not occur on park land; some preference for no road on south side • Barr building — shield with trees • West end — keep trail away from homes • Upside of pines = year round buffering Comments from July 91h Site Walk Note: There were about 35+ people in attendance at various times • Question: what is the distance of the perimeter of the property? • Lots of process questions: What is the budget? How will property taxes be affected? What is the 2015 status of The Fred? • Want developer to pay for any parkway • 9 Mile RT should be at southern end • Lots of discussion about stormwater mgt. • Expressed lack of trust of Council • Concerns re: traffic and parking on north side impacting residential ares • Discussed depth of buffer — min. 50'. Some thought this inadequate; others did not • Want residents to have flexibility to put up a fence. Do not want Council to pass ordinance prohibiting this • Questions re: Lake Edina paved trail — will it remain? Told them it will have to fit overall design • Question: have we walked site with Park Board? Note; plan to have August Park Board session at clubhouse • Recommendation: do traffic count today as baseline • Northern "peninsula" — want maximum privacy — visual and noise • Make sure space between yards does not become a park access ; minimize parking on streets to north • Do not want cul-de-sac area to become thru street • Do not want Lake Edina area to become road access • Like idea of garden — not animals • Concern re: field noise & lighting • Focus should be on uniqueness • Continued frustration re: process that led to Fred closing & path forward To: Park Board From: Susan Faus, Assistant Parks & Recreation Director Date: October 6, 2014 Subject: 2015 Fees and Charges Agenda Item #: VII.C. Action ❑ Discussion Information ❑x Action Requested: Staff requests a review and comment on the proposed 2015 Parks & Recreation Department and Enterprise Facilities fees and charges. This includes Braemar Arena, Braemar Golf Course, Centennial Lakes Park, Edinborough Park and the Edina Aquatic Center. The Edina Art Center fees and charges are reviewed by the Arts & Culture Commission. Information / Background: Attached is a copy of the proposed Parks & Recreation Department and Enterprise Facilities Fees and Charges. Proposed fees and charges increases for 2015 are indicated by bold print. According to City Code, the Park Board is asked to recommend fees and charges to the City Council. The philosophy that has long been followed in the City of Edina is that fees and charges are set at a level that accomplishes the following: • Users pay their fair share of the costs associated with the programs and facilities they use today and should not place that burden on future taxpayers (user based fee philosophy). • Keep programs and activities affordable and accessible to the maximum number of residents. • Cover the costs associated with the activity or facility whenever possible. • Find a way to allow all residents to participate in basic recreation programs regardless of their ability to pay (i.e. Edina Community Foundation Grant -In -Aid Fund). The city could probably charge higher fees in some cases without seeing a significant drop in participation, whereas higher fees in other programs would see a significant drop in participation and/or rentals. Accessibility to all residents, however, may be significantly affected by higher fees. I have asked staff to provide some explanations for the proposed fees and charges which is attached. The enterprise facilities managers will be available to answer any questions regarding their proposed fees. Attachments: 2015 Fees and Charges with Explanations City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 PARKS AN- , _CREATION Programs 2014 2015 Explanation Adult Tennis Instruction $52.00 $62.00 Fee raised due to increase in time added to the lessons format Youth Tennis Instruction 2 days $38.00 $38.00 Youth Tennis Instruction 3 days $52.00 $62.00 Raised fee to cover cost of Friday lessons Pee Wee Tennis $38.00 $38.00 Team Tennis $100.00 $105.00 Tennis Camp $104.00 $104.00 Playground $45.00 $45.00 Increased in 2014; parents rate this program a "great value" on surveys; fee similar to other cities Fab 4 & 5 $95.00 $95.00 Increased in 2014; parents rate this program a "great value" on surveys; fee similar to other cities Small Wonders $69.00 $69.00 Increased in 2014; parents rate this program a "great value" on surveys; fee similar to other cities Safety Camp $35.00 $35.00 Safety Camp Committee decision for fee to stay the same Super 6 & 7 $62.00 $62.00 Increased in 2014; parents rate this program a "great value" on surveys; fee similar to other cities Cheerleading Camp $50.00 $50.00 Fee set by Cheerleading Coach; fair price for a 4 day a.m. camp Highlands Explorers $69.00 $69.00 Increased in 2014; parents rate this program a "great value" on surveys; fee similar to other cities Playground Pros $75.00 $75.00 Increased in 2014; parents rate this program a "great value" on surveys; fee similar to other cities Travelin' Teens $114.00 $114.00 Increased in 2014; parents rate this program a "great value" on surveys; fee similar to other cities Pre-Creators $95.00 $95.00 Increased in 2014; parents rate this program a "great value" on surveys; fee similar to other cities Intro to Sports/Pre-Games $95.00 $95.00 Increased in 2014; parents rate this program a "great value" on surveys; fee similar to other cities Tiny Tot Sports $95.00 $95.00 Increased in 2014; parents rate this program a "great value" on surveys; fee similar to other cities Playground Creators $69.00 $69.00 Increased in 2014; parents rate this program a "great value" on surveys; fee similar to other cities Playground Performers $69.00 $69.00 Increased in 2014; parents rate this program a "great value" on surveys; fee similar to other cities Leaders in Training $45.00 $45.00 Increased in 2014; parents rate this program a "great value" on surveys; fee similar to other cities Fishing Clinic $10.00 $10.00 Barnyard Boogie (per person) $5.00 $5.00 Fee covers costs for afforable family program; market comparison Santa's Breakfast - Members $10.00 $10.00 Fee covers costs for afforable family program; market comparison Santa's Breakfast - Non-members $15.00 $15.00 Fee covers costs for afforable family program; market comparison Schools Out $25.00 $25.00 Comparable to other School's Out progams in community Garden Plot Rental $35.00 $35.00 Increased in 2014 Contracted Programs 2014 2015 Skyhawks Varies Varies Party Unit Varies Varies Soccer Shots Camp Varies Varies Reach Education Solutions Varies Varies Once Upon a Star Parties I Varies Varies Summer S .II Leagues - New Fee Structure 2014 ADULT P TIC FEES 2015 Explanation Men's League $490.00 $495.00 Fee raised $5 to stay within the market rate of leagues in our area Men's League Resident Discount Rate $430.00 $435.00 Co-Rec League $525.00 $535.00 Co-rec fee was raised by $10 in order to catch up what other communities charge Co-Rec League - Resident Discount Rate $465.00 $475.00 Men's Double Header League $730.00 $735.00 - Pen's Double Header League - Resident Discount Rate $670.00 $675.00 7 Volleyball - New Fee Structure 2014 2015 Explanation Officiated League $415.00 $415.00 Officiated League - Resident Discount Rate $365.00 $365.00 Basketball - New Fee Structure 2014 2015 Explanation 5 -Man C League $570.00 $575.00 Raised fee on all adult basketball leagues to cover costs of gym fee increase 5 -Man C League Resident Discount $510.00 $515.00 5 -Man B League $570.00 $575.00 5 -Man B League Resident Discount $510.00 $515.00 Hockey - New Fee Structure 2014 2015 Explanation 4 -Man League $305.00 $305.00 4 -Man League Resident Discount $255.00 $255.00 Broomball - New Fee Structure 2014 2015 Explanation Co-Rec League $370.00 $370.00 Co-Rec League Resident Discount $320.00 $320.00 Co-Rec Kickball - New Fee Structure 2014 2015 Explanation Co-Rec Kickball $150.00 $150.00 Co-Rec Kickball Resident Discount $125.00 $125.00 AQUATIC CENTER Season Tickets 2014 2015 Explanation Resident: Daily Admission FlowRider Add'I per person $5.00 $5.00 No change for 2015 Individual or First Family Member *$47.00/$52.00 *$47.00/$52.00 No change in 2015. Already higher than resident rates in surrounding communities Each Additional Member $47.50 *$43.00/$48.00 Reduced Early Bird fee to correct error. Still competitive with surrounding communities First 2 Members *$87.50/$97.50 NA Eliminated to reduce confusion. The goal is to simplify the pricing structure by only having two fees. There is a base price for an Individual/ First Family Member and one price for each additional family member. This will be much easier to calculate. Maximum (8 members) $382.50 NA Eliminated to reduce confusion. We will accommodate families of all sizes with the new pricing structure instead of limiting it to a family of 8. All family members must reside at the same household Non-Resident: Individual or First Family Member *$57.00/$62.00 *$60.00/$65.00 Increased fee as an incentive for Early Bird purchase & remain competitive w/surrounding communities Each additional member $52.50 *$55.00/$60.00 Increased fee as an incentive for Early Bird purchase & remain competitive w/surrounding communities First 2 members *$102.50/$112.50 NA Eliminated to reduce confusion. The goal is to simplify the pricing structure by only having two fees. There is a base price for an Individual or First Family Member and one price for each additional family member. This will be much easier to calculate Maximum (8 members) $427.50 NA Eliminated to reduce confusion. We will accommodate families of all sizes with the new pricing structure instead of limiting itto a family of 8 Season FlowRider additional per person *$42.50/$47.50 *$25.00/$45.00 Reduced price as an incentive for Early Bird purchase and increase overall Season Pass sales. The additional price of the II'lowRider Season Pass (on top of the regular season pass) is prohibitive for many FlowRider 2014 2015 Explanation Season FlowRider additional per person *$42.50/$47.50 Reduced price as an incentive for Early Bird purchase and increase overall Season Pass sales. The additional price of the *$25.00/$45.00 FlowRider Season Pass (on top of the regular season pass) is prohibitive for many Daily Admission FlowRider Add'I per person $5.00 $5.00 No change for 2015 Rental and Instruction - 30 minutes NA $55 Rental and Instruction - 1 hour NA $100 Daily Admissions 2014 2015 Explanation Daily Admission (resident & non-resident) $10.00 $10.00 No change for 2015; already higher than surrounding communities Admission after 5 p.m. $8.00 $8.00 No change for 2015; already higher than surrounding communities Daily Admission FlowRider Add'I per person $5.00 $5.00 No change for 2015 Aquatic Instruction 2014 2015 1 Explanation Aquatic Instruction Contracted I Contracted lNo change for 2015 *Early Bird Special if purchased no later than April 30, 2015 *Prices DO NOT include tax • Patron and Non -Patron Cards 2014 BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE Green Fees 2014 2015 Explanation 18 hole - non -patron $39.00/$42.00 $39.00/$42.00 No increase for 2015; fees were increased in 2014. Per proforma-next scheduled increase will be in 2017 18 hole - patron $31.00/$32.00 $31.00/$32.00 No increase for 2015; fees were increased in 2014. Per proforma-next scheduled increase will be in 2017 Senior - patron (age 62 and older) $29.00/$30.00 $29.00/$30.00 No increase for 2015; fees were increased in 2014. Per proforma-next scheduled increase will be in 2017 Senior - non -patron (age 62 and older) $37.00/$39.00 $37.00/$39.00 No increase for 2015; fees were increased in 2014. Per proforma-next scheduled increase will be in 2017 9 hole - non -patron $20.00/$21.00 $20.00/$21.00 No increase for 2015; fees were increased in 2014. Per proforma-next scheduled increase will be in 2017 9 hole - patron $16.00/$17.00 $16.00/$17.00 No increase for 2015; fees were increased in 2014. Per proforma-next scheduled increase will be in 2017 Masters Senior (patrons age 75 and older) $25.00/$27.00 $25.00/$27.00 No increase for 2015; fees were increased in 2014. Per proforma-next scheduled increase will be in 2017 College Age Rate $26.00/$30.00 $26.00/$30.00 No increase for 2015; fees were increased in 2014. Per proforma-next scheduled increase will be in 2017 Junior 18 Hole Rate $20.00 $20.00 No increase for 2015; fees were increased in 2014. Per proforma-next scheduled increase will be in 2017 Junior 9 Hole Rate $12.00 $12.00 No increase for 2015; fees were increased in 2014. Per proforma-next scheduled increase will be in 2017 GROUP FEES - 18 HOLES $49.00 $49.00 No increase for 2015; fees were increased in 2014. Per proforma-next scheduled increase will be in 2017 GROUP FEES - 9 HOLES $25.00 $25.00 No increase for 2015; fees were increased in 2014. Per proforma-next scheduled increase will be in 2017 Patron and Non -Patron Cards 2014 2015 Explanation Resident Patron Card Before April 1 $75.00 $75.00 No increase for 2015. Per proforma-next scheduled increase will be in 2016 Resident Patron Card After March 31 $80.00 $80.00 No increase for 2015. Per proforma-next scheduled increase will be in 2016 Non -Resident Patron Card Before April 1 $90.00 $90.00 No increase for 2015. Per proforma-next scheduled increase will be in 2016 Non -Resident Patron Card After March 31 $95.00 $95.00 No increase for 2015. Per proforma-next scheduled increase will be in 2016 Computerized Handicaps 2014 2015 Explanation Resident $27.00 $27.00 No increase for 2015. Industry standard rate Non -Resident $32.00 $32.00 No increase for 2015. Industry standard rate Lockers 2014 2015 Explanation Men's 72 inch $40.00 $40.00 No increase for 2015 Men's 42 inch $30.00 $30.00 No increase for 2015 Ladies 72 inch $20.00 $20.00 No increase for 2015 Club Storage $50.00 $50.00 No increase for 2015 Club Rental $25.00 $25.00 No increase for 2015 Push Carts - 9 Hole $5.00 $5.00 No increase for 2015; fees were increased in 2014 Push Carts - 18 Hole $7.00 $7.00 No increase for 2015, fees were increased in 2014 Golf Cars 2014 2015 Explanation 18 holes $31.00 $31.00 No increase for 2015, fees were increased in 2014 9 holes $19.00 $19.00 No increase for 2015; fees were increased in 2014 Group Car Fees $38.00 $38.00 No increase for 2015; fees were increased in 2014 BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE - continued Group Golf Lessons 2014 2015 Explanation Adult $105.00 $105.00 No increase for 2015 Junior $50.00 $50.00 No increase for 2015 Braemar Room 2014 2015 Explanation Resident - Wedding Related $1,000.00 $1,000.00 No increase for 2015; fees were increased in 2014. Fee will increase after renovation Non -Residents - Wedding Related $1,200.00 $1,200.00 No increase for 2015; fees were increased in 2014. Fee will increase after renovation Other events $375.00/$1,200.00 $375.00/$1,200.00 No increase for 2015; fees were increased in 2014. Fee will increase after renovation Braemar Driving Range 2014 2015 Explanation Large bucket $7.75 $7.75 No increase for 2015 in a construction year. Fee will increase after renovation Small bucket $5.25 $5.25 No increase for 2015 in a construction year. Fee will increase after renovation Warm-up bucket $3.00 $3.00 No increase for 2015 in a construction year. Fee will increase after renovation Golf Cars 2014 2015 BRAEMAR EXECUTIVE COURSE Greens Fees 2014 2015 Explanation Adult non -patron $15.50 $15.50 No increase for 2015; fees were increased in 2014 and 2015 will be a construction year Adult patron $12.50 $12.50 No increase for 2015; fees were increased in 2014 and 2015 will be a construction year Junior $10.00 $10.00 No increase for 2015; fees were increased in 2014 and 2015 will be a construction year Junior - 10 Round Card $75.00 $75.00 No increase for 2015; fees were increased in 2014 and 2015 will be a construction year Golf Cars 2014 2015 Explanation Golf Cars (everyone) $15.00 $15.00 No increase for 2015, fees were increased in 2014 and 2015 will be a construction year Pull Carts $3.00 $3.00 No increase for 2015, fees were increased in 2014 and 2015 will be a construction year Group Fees $18.00 $18.00 No increase for 2015, fees were increased in 2014 and 2015 will be a construction year Patron Cards 2014 2015 1 Explanation Adults Only (18 and older) $25.00 1 $25.00 INo increase for 2015 in a construction year. Per proforma-next scheduled increase will be in 2016 GOLF DOME 2014 2015 Explanation Large bucket $9.00 $9.00 No increase for 2015; fees were increased in 2014 Senior bucket $8.50 $8.50 No increase for 2015; fees were increased in 2014 Time Golf 1/2 hour $14.00 $14.00 No increase for 2015; fees were increased in 2014 Hourly Field Rental $175.00 $175.00 No increase for 2015; fees were increased in 2014 Birthday Party Packages/2 Hours 2014 2015 Explanation Adventure Package $160.00 $160.00 No increase for 2015; fees increased in 2014 Peak Package $100.00 $100.00 No increase for 2015; fees increased in 2014 Building Rentals/Non-Exclusive Rentals/Hr 2014 EDINBOROUGH PARK Pool & Track Daily Admission 2014 2015 Explanation Pool & Track daily admission residents/non-residents $7.00 $7.00 No increase for 2015; propose increase after locker room, pool and track improvements in 2016 No increase for 2015; comparable to other rental spaces Grotto $200.00 $200.00 Pool & Track 10 Admission Pass 2014 2015 Explanation Pool & Track 10 admission pass residents/non-residents NA $60.00 No increase for 2015; priced the same as Playpark 10 admission pass New offering. 10 tables in Party Plateau, 2 hour minimum, weekdays only Pool (swim team only) $45.00 $45.00 Pool & Track Annual Membership 2014 2015 Explanation Resident Individual $260.00 $260.00 No increase for 2015; propose increase after locker room, pool and track improvements in 2016 Each additional member $90.00 $90.00 No increase for 2015; propose increase after locker room, pool and track improvements in 2016 Non -Resident Individual $290.00 $290.00 No increase for 2015; propose increase after locker room, pool and track improvements in 2016 Each additional member $100.00 $100.00 No increase for 2015; propose increase after locker room, pool and track improvements in 2016 Locker Rental 1 $0.25 1 $0.25 Birthday Party Packages/2 Hours 2014 2015 Explanation Adventure Package $160.00 $160.00 No increase for 2015; fees increased in 2014 Peak Package $100.00 $100.00 No increase for 2015; fees increased in 2014 Building Rentals/Non-Exclusive Rentals/Hr 2014 2015 Explanation Great Hall $350.00 $350.00 No increase for 2015; comparable to other rental spaces Theater $250.00 $250.00 No increase for 2015; comparable to other rental spaces Grotto $200.00 $200.00 No increase for 2015; comparable to other rental spaces Adventure Peak $300.00 $300.00 No increase for 2015; comparable to other rental spaces Party Plateau - 10 Tables NA $125.00 New offering. 10 tables in Party Plateau, 2 hour minimum, weekdays only Pool (swim team only) $45.00 $45.00 No increase for 2015 Commercial Photo Shoot (hourly) 2014 2015 Explanation Any park area blocked off $250.00 $250.00 No increase for 2015 Grotto $250.00 $250.00 No increase for 2015 Theatre $250.00 $250.00 No increase for 2015 Great Hall $350.00 $350.00 No increase for 2015 Domestic Photo Shoot (hourly) 2014 2015 Explanation Any park area blocked off $200.00 $200.00 No increase for 2015 Grotto $200.00 $200.00 No increase for 2015 Theatre $200.00 $200.00 No increase for 2015 Great Hall $350.00 $350.00 No increase for 2015 Playpark - 10 Admission Pass 2014 2015 Explanation Resident $60.00 $60.00 No increase in 2015; already higher than like providers Non -Resident $60.00 $60.00 No increase in 2015; already higher than like providers Playpark Annual Membership 2014 EDINBOROUGH PARK "PLAYPARK" Playpark Daily Admission 2014 2015 Explanation Resident $7.00 $7.00 No increase in 2015; already higher than like providers Non -Resident $7.00 $7.00 No increase in 2015; already higher than like providers Children under 12 months Free Free No change Adults Free w/paid child Free w/paid child No change Edinborough Association Members Daily Pass $6.00 $6.00 No increase in 2015 Playpark - 10 Admission Pass 2014 2015 Explanation Resident $60.00 $60.00 No increase in 2015; already higher than like providers Non -Resident $60.00 $60.00 No increase in 2015; already higher than like providers Playpark Annual Membership 2014 2015 Explanation Resident Individual $85.00 $85.00 No increase in 2015 Each additional member $65.00 $65.00 No increase in 2015 Non -Resident Individual $110.00 $110.00 No increase in 2015 Each additional member $90.00 $90.00 No increase in 2015 Total Facility Daily Admission 2014 2015 Explanation Resident $12.00 $12.00 No increase in 2015 Non-resident $12.00 $12.00 No increase in 2015 We will be charging sales tax (7.275%) to all of our fees, charges and purchases Building Rentals 2014 2015 Explanation 1/2 day - Salon M-TH $250.00 $250.00 Sunday - 1/2 day Salon $400.00 $400.00 Weekend Rental - 6 hour period 2014 2015 Explanation -riday evening $1,150.00 $1,150.00 Increased to present rate in 2013 Saturday evening $1,150.00 $1,150.00 Increased to present rate in 2013 Amphitheater Rental 2014 2015 Explanation 4mphitheater Rental $275.00 $300.00 Anticipated revenue increase of $1,000 commercial Photo Shoot $50.00/hr. $50.00/hr. Champion Putting 2014 2015 Explanation 9 hole $5.00 $5.00 18 hole $9.00 $10.00 Last increase was in 2012. Revenue increase anticipated to be $20,000 Lawn Games CENTENNIAL LAKES Rental Concession Items 2014 2015 Explanation Paddle Boats - 4 person boat 1/2 hour $8.00 $9.00 Last increase was in 2011. Anticipated revenue increase of $7,500 Winter sled per hour $7.00 $7.00 Ice Skate $6.00 $6.00 Increased to $6 last year Building Rentals 2014 2015 Explanation 1/2 day - Salon M-TH $250.00 $250.00 Sunday - 1/2 day Salon $400.00 $400.00 Weekend Rental - 6 hour period 2014 2015 Explanation -riday evening $1,150.00 $1,150.00 Increased to present rate in 2013 Saturday evening $1,150.00 $1,150.00 Increased to present rate in 2013 Amphitheater Rental 2014 2015 Explanation 4mphitheater Rental $275.00 $300.00 Anticipated revenue increase of $1,000 commercial Photo Shoot $50.00/hr. $50.00/hr. Champion Putting 2014 2015 Explanation 9 hole $5.00 $5.00 18 hole $9.00 $10.00 Last increase was in 2012. Revenue increase anticipated to be $20,000 Lawn Games 2014 2015 1 Explanation Per Court $20.00/hr. $20.00/hr. llncreased to present rate in 2014 • Season Tickets (set the first week of September) 2014 2015 ARENA Rates 2014 2015 Explanation Hourly Rate (as of 9/14) $210.00 $210.00 We are staying competitive with the Metro Area (average is $180) Off -Season Non -Prime $155.00 $155.00 We are staying competitive with the Metro Area (average is $145) Off -Season Prime (Sun-Thurs Evening) $165.00 $165.00 We are staying competitive with the Metro Area (average is $155) Early Morning/Undesirable Ice NA $75.00 Attempting to attract more early morning hours, or last minute undesirable hours Outdoor Rink EHA NA $130.00 2014 - $125 was budgeted amount based on Metro Average Outdoor Rink March 16 - May 15 NA $155.00 We are keeping open; however, will be more expensive to operate Open skating (youth and adult) $5.00 $5.00 We are staying competitive with the Metro Area (average is $4.15) Skate Rental $3.00 $3.00 Keeping affordable for new skaters to try Birthday Party Open Skating $99.00 $99.00 Trying to build the program; do not want to increase fees Room Rental NA $25.00 Room rental fee for groups outside of BCLFSC, EHA, EHS Room Set-Up/Clean-Up NA $25.00 Adding fee for excessive set-up and clean-up for BCLFSC, EHA, EHS Season Tickets (set the first week of September) 2014 2015 Explanation Resident Family: $11.75/$22.50 1 $12/$23 1 Last increase was 2012. Equates to approximately $3 per 12 week class First 2 members $115.00 $115.00 Recent increase, membership is declining Each additional member $10.00 $10.00 Recent increase, membership is declining Maximum (7 persons) $165.00 $165.00 Recent increase, membership is declining Resident Individual $105.00 $105.00 Recent increase, membership is declining Non -Resident Family: $30.00 Fees based on comparable facilities 50' Batting Cage - 1/2 hour First 2 members $130.00 $130.00 Recent increase, membership is declining Each additional member $10.00 $10.00 Recent increase, membership is declining Maximum (7 persons) $180.00 $180.00 Recent increase, membership is declining Non -Resident Individual $115.00 $115.00 Recent increase, membership is declining Classes - New Class Structure 2014 2015 1 Explanation Classes - 30 or 60 minutes $11.75/$22.50 1 $12/$23 1 Last increase was 2012. Equates to approximately $3 per 12 week class BRAEMAR FIELD Hourly Rates 2014 2015 Explanation Full Field Prime (Mon -Fri 4pm-10pm/Sat, Sun 7am-10pm) NA $350.00 Fees based on comparable facilities 1/2 Field Prime (Mon -Fri 4pm-10pm/Sat, Sun 7am-10pm) NA $175.00 Fees based on comparable facilities 70' Batting Cage NA $60.00 Fees based on comparable facilities 50' Batting Cage NA $50.00 Fees based on comparable facilities 70' Batting Cage - 1/2 hour NA $30.00 Fees based on comparable facilities 50' Batting Cage - 1/2 hour NA $25.00 Fees based on comparable facilities Full Field Non -Prime NA $150.00 Fees based on comparable facilities 1/2 Field Non -Prime NA $75.00 Fees based on comparable facilities Open Turf Time NA $31.00 Fees based on comparable facilities Residents - No Dome/Field Only NA $65.00 Fees based on comparable facilities Non -Residents - No Dome/Field Only NA $100.00 Fees based on comparable facilities Athletic Fields - Residents Only 2014 PARK DEPARTMENT RENTALS General Park Areas 2014 2015 Explanation Resident Use/hour $50.00 $50.00 Staff recommendation is no fee increase for 2015. Staff wants to keep parks accessible and affordable for all Resident Use/day $140.00 $140.00 Staff recommendation is no fee increase for 2015. Staff wants to keep parks accessible and affordable for all Commercial Use (i.e. TV)/hr. $80.00 $80.00 Staff recommendation is no fee increase for 2015. Staff wants to keep parks accessible and affordable for all Commercial use with light/hr $135.00 $135.00 Staff recommendation is no fee increase for 2015. Staff wants to keep parks accessible and affordable for all Showmobile/day $700.00 $700.00 Staff recommendation is no fee increase for 2015. Staff wants to keep parks accessible and affordable for all Athletic Fields - Residents Only 2014 2015 Explanation Per field - per day $139.00 $139.00 Staff recommendation is no fee increase for 2015 Per field - per hour $50.00 $50.00 Staff recommendation is no fee increase for 2015 Per field - per hour w/lights $77.00 $77.00 Staff recommendation is no fee increase for 2015 Van Valkenburg/Courtney Fields (residents only) 2014 1 2015 1 Explanation Per field/day includes building $165.00 1 $165.00 IStaff recommendation is no fee increase for 2015 Rosland Park Pathway (residents only) 2014 2015 Explanation Per Hour $75.00 $75.00 Staff recommendation is no fee increase for 2015 Per Day $225.00 $225.00 Staff recommendation is no fee increase for 2015 Utley Park Fire Ring Rental (residents only) 2014 2015 Explanation Fire Ring - per day $28.00 1 $28.00 IStaff recommendation is no fee increase; only rented five times in 2014 ARNESON ACRES - RESIDENTS Explanation Terrace Room Only Per hour, first hour $85.00 $85.00 Staff recommendation is no fee increase for 2015; fees were increased in 2014 Each additional hour up to 3 hours $55.00 $55.00 Staff recommendation is no fee increase for 2015; fees were increased in 2014 Per day (4 hours or more) $205.00 $205.00 Staff recommendation is no fee increase for 2015; fees were increased in 2014 Gazebo Only Half day (6 hrs. or less) $85.00 $85.00 Staff recommendation is no fee increase for 2015; fees were increased in 2014 Full Day (over 6 hrs.) $120.00 $120.00 Staff recommendation is no fee increase for 2015; fees were increased in 2014 Terrace Room & Gazebo Per hour, first hour $120.00 $120.00 Staff recommendation is no fee increase for 2015; fees were increased in 2014 Each additional hour up to 3 hours $60.00 1 $60.00 Staff recommendation is no fee increase for 2015; fees were increased in 2014 Per day (4 hours or more) $250.00 1 $250.00 IStaff recommendation is no fee increase for 2015; fees were increased in 2014 PICNIC SHELTER RENTALS (residents only) 2014 PARK DEPARTMENT RENTALS - continued ARNESON ACRES - NON-RESIDENTS 2014 2015 Explanation Terrace Room Only Per hour, first hour $105.00 $105.00 Staff recommendation is no fee increase for 2015; fees were increased in 2014 Each additional hour up to 3 hours $75.00 $75.00 Staff recommendation is no fee increase for 2015; fees were increased in 2014 Per day (4 hours or more) $270.00 $270.00 Staff recommendation is no fee increase for 2015; fees were increased in 2014 Gazebo Only Half day (6 hrs. or less) $105.00 $105.00 Staff recommendation is no fee increase for 2015; fees were increased in 2014 Full Day (over 6 hrs.) $155.00 $155.00 Staff recommendation is no fee increase for 2015; fees were increased in 2014 Terrace Room & Gazebo Wooddale Park - half-day $28.00 $28.00 Per hour, first hour $140.00 $140.00 Staff recommendation is no fee increase for 2015; fees were increased in 2014 Each additional hour up to 3 hours $70.00 $70.00 Staff recommendation is no fee increase for 2015; fees were increased in 2014 Per day (4 hours or more) $294.00 $294.00 Staff recommendation is no fee increase for 2015; fees were increased in 2014 PICNIC SHELTER RENTALS (residents only) 2014 2015 Explanation Chowen Park - half-day $28.00 $28.00 Staff recommendation is no fee increase for any of our rentals in 2015. Current fees cover set-up and clean-up costs and other miscellaneous expenses. Chowen Park - full-day $44.00 $44.00 Staff recommendation is no fee increase for any of our rentals in 2015. Current fees cover set-up and clean-up costs and other miscellaneous expenses. Sherwood Park - half-day $28.00 $28.00 Staff recommendation is no fee increase for any of our rentals in 2015. Current fees cover set-up and clean-up costs and other miscellaneous expenses. Sherwood Park - full-day $44.00 $44.00 Staff recommendation is no fee increase for any of our rentals in 2015. Current fees cover set-up and clean-up costs and other miscellaneous expenses. Wooddale Park - half-day $28.00 $28.00 Staff recommendation is no fee increase for any of our rentals in 2015. Current fees cover set-up and clean-up costs and other miscellaneous expenses. Wooddale Park - full-day $44.00 $44.00 Staff recommendation is no fee increase for any of our rentals in 2015. Current fees cover set-up and clean-up costs and other miscellaneous expenses. Rosland Park - full-day ONLY $155.00 $155.00 Staff recommendation is no fee increase for any of our rentals in 2015. Current fees cover set-up and clean-up costs and other miscellaneous expenses. PARK SHELTER BUILDINGS RENTALS (residents only) 2014 2015 Explanation Cornelia School Park - half-day $70.00 $70.00 Staff recommendation is no fee increase for 2015. Accessibility to all residents. The current fees cover activity and facility costs Cornelia School Park - full-day $105.00 $105.00 Staff recommendation is no fee increase for 2015. Accessibility to all residents. The current fees cover activity and facility costs Todd Park - half-day $70.00 $70.00 Staff recommendation is no fee increase for 2015. Accessibility to all residents. The current fees cover activity and facility costs Todd Park - full-day $105.00 $105.00 Staff recommendation is no fee increase for 2015. Accessibility to all residents. The current fees cover activity and facility costs Walnut Ridge Park - half-day $70.00 $70.00 Staff recommendation is no fee increase for 2015. Accessibility to all residents. The current fees cover activity and facility costs Walnut Ridge Park - full-day $105.00 $105.00 Staff recommendation is no fee increase for 2015. Accessibility to all residents. The current fees cover activity and facility costs Weber Park - half -day $70.00 $70.00 Staff recommendation is no fee increase for 2015. Accessibility to all residents. The current fees cover activity and facility costs WeberPark- full-day $105.00 $105.00 Staff recommendation is no fee increase for 2015. Accessibility to all residents. The current fees cover activity and facility costs EL._ _ . ATHLETIC ASSOCIATIONS 2014 2015 Explanation Field user fee/participant $11.00 $11.00 No increase in 2015 Gymnaisum user fee/participant $11.00 $11.00 No increase in 2015 Outdoor hockey rink user fee/participant $11.00 $11.00 No increase in 2015 Inclusion Fee/participant $1.00 $1.00 No increase in 2015 Room Rental - New Fee Structure 2014 EDINA SENIOR CENTER Fees 2014 2015 Explanation Golf league membership (Richards Golf Course) $12.00 $13.00 Increase $1 to cover any new costs and banquet prices Bowling League Membership $11.00 $11.00 Increased in 2014 Edina Senior Center Membership $17.00/$27.00 $17.00/$27.00 $200.00 Greeting Cards $1.50 $1.00 With the Dollar Store prices, we were not selling at $1.50 Trips & Tours $3.25 $3.25 Increased in 2014 Trips & Tours - Non -Members $5.25 $5.25 Increased in 2014 Defensive Driving $22.00 $20.00/$25.00 AARP Member is $20.00; Non -AARP Member is $25.00 Elder Learning Institute Classes $20.00 $20.00 Increased in 2014 Card Tournaments $1.00/person $1.00/person Social Card Groups (per person, per day) $0.25 $0.25 Podiatrist $3.00/patient $3.00/patient Increased in 2014 Room Rental - New Fee Structure 2014 2015 Explanation Classroom or Grandview Room- Resident (2 hr. min.) $40.00/hr. $40.00/hr. Changed in 2014; no price increase recommended Classroom or Grandview Room- Non-resident (2 hr. min.) $45.00/hr. $45.00/hr. Changed in 2014; no price increase recommended Classroom - resident - more than 4 hours $150.00 $150.00 Changed in 2014; no price increase recommended Classroom - non-resident - more than 4 hours $200.00 $200.00 Changed in 2014; no price increase recommended Fireside Room per day - Resident $170.00 $170.00 Changed in 2014; no price increase recommended Fireside Room per day - Non-resident $200.00 $200.00 Changed in 2014; no price increase recommended Fireside Room per hour - Resident $50.00 $50.00 Changed in 2014; no price increase recommended Fireside Room per hour - Non-resident $60.00 $60.00 Changed in 2014; no price increase recommended Wall art display rental 15% of sale 15% of sale Equipment Rental 2014 2015 Explanation Television/VCR/DVD $12.00 $12.00 Changed in 2014; no price increase recommended Overhead Projector $7.00 $7.00 Changed in 2014; no price increase recommended Portable Screen $7.00 $7.00 Changed in 2014; no price increase recommended U To: Park Board From: Ann Kattreh Parks & Recreation Director Date: October 6, 2014 Subject: 2015 Park Board Work Plan JBBfi Agenda Item #: VII.D. Action Discussion Information ❑ Action Requested: Provide suggested changes or additions to the proposed plan and approve the 2015 Park Board Work Plan. Information / Background: The proposed 2015 Park Board Work Plan is attached. This was completed using the Park Board members feedback and previous recommendations. Items on the 2015 Capital Improvement Plan are also included. The work plan needs to be approved at this meeting. They City Council will be reviewing Boards and Commissions work plans at the October 7, 2014 work session. Attachment: Proposed 2015 Park Board Work Plan City of Edina • 4801 W. 50,h St. • Edina, MN 55424 • o e m Park Board 0 2015 Annual Work Plan - DRAFT \NCon%tF9 Strategic planning with a comprehensive needs December 2015 $94,000 Director, Assistant Director, assessment Enterprise Managers, Recreation Supervisors, Administrative Support Staff, Public Works Director Park Board Duties: Serve on working groups and subcommittees with consultants, staff and residents to evaluate city needs to identify, prioritize and develop a plan to address strategic uses relating to policies, facilities, programming and financial and personnel resources. A subcommittee has already been established including Members Deeds, Cella, Steel, Segreto and Jones. $60,000 is budgeted in the 2013 CIP. At the completion, the Park Board will provide review and comment on the strategic plan. The City Council will have the final approval of the strategic plan. Progress Report: 2015 Initiative Target Completion Budget Staff Support Required Council Date Required Approval Fred Richards Park Master Plan December 2015 0 Director, Assistant Director, Recreation Supervisors, Administrative Support Staff, Public Works Director Park Board Duties: Select a working group, working group chair and a consultant. Assess needs, provide community engagement and work with consultant to develop a master plan for Fred Richards Park. At the completion, the Park Board will provide review and comment on the proposed master plan. The City Council will have the final approval of this project. Park Board member(s): Progress Report: Arneson Acres Park Master Plan August 2015 $35,000 Director, Assistant Director and Horticulturist Park Board Duties: Select a working group, working group chair and a consultant. Assess needs and work with consultant to develop a master plan for Arneson Acres Park. At the completion, the Park Board will provide review and comment on the proposed master plan. The City Council will have the final approval of this project. Park Board member(s): Ellen Jones, Louise Segreto. Progress Report: 2015 Initiative Target Completion•• .•. Required Council Date • • Approval Cost Recovery Goals for Enterprise Facilities October 2015 0 Enterprise Managers, Director and Assistant Director Park Board Duties: Form a subcommittee to review enterprise facility budgets and business plans and programming and the overarching department goals determined by the strategic planning process in order to reevaluate enterprise classifications and to set cost recovery goals. The committee will present findings to the Park Board for review and comment regarding cost recovery goals and criteria for classification as an enterprise. Park Board member(s): Progress Report: Green Initiatives December 2015 0 Director, Assistant Director and Public Works Director Park Board Duties: Park Board will select members and establish a subcommittee or working group to study green initiatives for the parks and the enterprise operations. The subcommittee/working group will present recommendations to the Park Board for their approval. This aligns with the Energy and Environment Commission's work plan goal to promote sustainability in city operations. Park Board member(s): Ellen Jones Progress Report: Urban Forest Task Force Report December 2015 0 Director or Assistant Director Park Board Duties: Park Board will establish a subcommittee to study the Urban Forest Task Force Report. The Park Board will hear recommendations provided by the EEC, decide which recommendations to implement and adopt a plan to phase in selected recommendations. Park Board member(s): Progress Report: • Capital Improvement Plan • Fees and Charges • Election of Officers • 2016 Park Board Work Plan Proposed Month for Joint Work Session: Staff comments: council comments: To: Park Board From: Ann Kattreh Parks & Recreation Director Date: October 6, 2014 Subject: Minneapolis Waterworks Site — 40th & France Action Requested: No action requested by staff. Information / Background: Agenda Item #: VII.E. Action ❑ Discussion ❑x Information N The site is located on the west side of France Avenue near its intersection with W. 40th Street [see attached map]. The parcel is 14.3 acres in size. The north 1/3 of the property is located in the City of St. Louis Park and the southern 2/3 is located in the City of Edina. While the property is owned by the City of Minneapolis, neither site is within the corporate limits of the City of Minneapolis. The property was purchased in the 1920s by the City of Minneapolis to serve as a future asset for the Minneapolis municipal water utility. Other than a pump station located near France Avenue, there are no other buildings on the site. The City of St. Louis Park manages a small portion of the Minikanda Vista Park (the infield portion of the ball field) on the far NW corner of the site through a lease agreement with the City of Minneapolis. The City of Edina has no current formal use of any portion of the site. In 2006 staff from St. Louis Park and Edina approached the City of Minneapolis about using the site as an off -leash dog park. At that time, Minneapolis was not interested in selling or leasing the property to either city. Despite the fact that the dog park proposal did not go forward in 2006, the site has been used as an unofficial off -leash dog park, along with other unsupervised activities, ever since. The City of Minneapolis first approached City staff from St. Louis Park and Edina in September of 2013 to advise that the property was being declared to be "excess land" and was to be sold by the City of Minneapolis. Because the land was located in St. Louis Park and Edina, Minneapolis city officials wanted to discuss the possibility of a bilateral sale of the pro rata share of the site to each city instead of putting the land on the market for possible sale and subsequent private development, most likely as new residential sites. Development Potential and Property Value The zoning for the site in Edina is R-1. It is guided as low density residential in our Comprehensive Guide Plan. The zoning and guiding in the St. Louis Park portion are similar to our designations. The City of Minneapolis shared two concept plans for subdividing the site into a total of 27 single-family parcels. Approximately seven of those single family residential lots were in St. Louis Park and 20 were in Edina. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 2 Edina city staffs analysis of the development potential of the site differs substantially from the view offered by Minneapolis city staff. Given the flood plain, steep slopes, and median lot size requirements of our City Code, Edina city staff estimates a total of ten developable lots in the Edina portion of the site. Based on the R I zoning district minimum lot area of 9,000 square feet in St. Louis Park, St. Louis Park staff estimates a development potential of approximately four dwelling units per acre could be achieved on an unimpeded site. The concept plans show fewer lots because part of the land is within the floodplain. City staff has told Minneapolis staff on multiple occasions that staffs interest would not be in developing the property for residential homes, but rather to maintain a park for the residents of all three communities with possible storm water management amenities. Determining the value of the property has been a sticking point in discussions between staff of Edina, St. Louis Park and Minneapolis. The City Council has had no formal discussions about this issue to date. Staff have scheduled a Closed Session in advance of the City Council's October 7 Work Session in order to discuss the possible purchase of real estate owned by the City of Minneapolis at 40th & France . The Mayors of St. Louis Park and Edina received a letter from the Mayor of Minneapolis requesting a decision on purchasing the property be communicated to them no later than November 14, 2014 and that a real estate closing occur before the end of the year. The purpose of the Closed Session is to provide City Council with relevant background information about the site, discuss proposed uses for the site and discuss possible strategies to move forward. Attachment: Site Diagram iy x t A CD LO LO 'e � cu ,. ' YF ILy ..� ... r - -=N �*CL if aCLyxr .. . ' ..I&M P41 NOWIP—. RYA" lot C:'- ai .^ " z - air -. a' at Ln ry) �a t ' LO _ . Al *>mowLn Ito, co a; s. , OW x — A et T4 """�Iro a Y U Uri yp { i f yV rN- s. 3 Y� .�t CF) IMP x AMC OL vc> Y A low Lot A� 4c I w R Ate. 0 To: Park Board From: Ann Kattreh Parks & Recreation Director Date: October 6, 2014 Subject: Grandview Update Action Requested: Information and discussion only Information / Background: Grandview Update w9�^�j� o/ e • ��ooRroiiFs6� • lases Agenda Item #: VII.F. Action ❑ Discussion N Information N On Tuesday, September 16, 2014 the Edina City Council met to discuss the proposals and presentations submitted by development teams interested in partnering with the city to redevelop the former Public Works site at 5146 Eden Ave. From the 10 responses received, the City Council heard presentations from four selected finalists: Doran Companies, Frauenshuh Commercial Real Estate Group, Greco, LLC and Kraus -Anderson Realty. At the conclusion of the City Council conversation, a majority agreed to name Frauenshuh Commercial Real Estate Group as the preferred team. The City Council believes that Frauenshuh possesses the expertise, creativity and tenacity to create a successful public/private development that will serve as a catalyst for future redevelopment in the Grandview District. The naming of a potential development partner is the beginning of a multi -stage process that should ultimately result in the construction of buildings that will serve both public and private purposes. The partnership agreement is anticipated to consist of several distinct stages, including: Stage 1, Alternative Development. The partners will research and explore various options for the site. The partners will produce at least two potential alternatives for re -use of the site. This stage will involve significant input from residents, businesses and community groups with a potential interest in the site Stage 2, Public Evaluation. Re -use alternatives will be made available for an additional round of public evaluation and feedback Stage 3, Scenario Selection. The City Council will determine which scenario, if any, is in the best interest of the community. Selection of the preferred scenario is anticipated in mid -2015 "This multi -stage process will give city leaders a sound idea of the realistic potential of the site and better understand what could feasibly be developed there," said the City's Economic Development Manager Bill Neuendorf. "After the alternatives are explored and evaluated by the public, the city should have a re -use concept for the site that meets the need of the community." Only after a final scenario is selected will the City of Edina • 4801 W. 501h St. • Edina, MN 55424 REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 2 city and the development partner enter into a binding redevelopment agreement to execute the preferred scenario. "In this exploratory phase, we'll use Frauenshuh's expertise in real estate development coupled with the community's keen understanding of future needs to identify the best combination of public and private uses for the site," Neuendorf said. "Based on this knowledge, the city can make an informed decision on how to move forward to turn this vacant property into a productive parcel that adds to the spirit of the Grandview District." At this time, there are no plans or timelines for construction. In the weeks ahead, city staff will work with representatives from this development team to prepare a Term Sheet that identifies the responsibilities and expectations of both partners. In late 2014 and early 2015, the process of determining the best possible uses and designs of the site will be fully explored. A final design is anticipated to be approved by the city in summer 2015. Additional information about the extensive community engagement process will be posted on the city website in the weeks ahead. 0 To: Park Board From: Ann Kattreh Parks & Recreation Director Date: October 6, 2014 Subject: Council Updates Action Requested: No Action is Necessary. Information / Background: 7 9 - A, l� p e t� o �y • ,,�OHPOgeC�bS7 � ]BPH Agenda Item #: VIII.A. Action ❑ Discussion ❑ Information M Please see the City Council Updates from their August 19, September 2, and September 16, City Council Meetings. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50,h St. • Edina, MN 55424 City Council Updates August 19, 2014 Final approval and authorization to proceed for Edina Veterans Memorial. September 2, 2014 • Approved $26,300 for the purchase of a new triple -wave slide for Adventure Peak at Edinborough Park. • Approved $18,000 for renovations to the lower level of Adventure Peak, including two new Sit & Spins, two new Skywheels and two new Pogo Hoppers • Approved $48,436 for the purchase of security cameras and building access card readers from Pro - Tec Design for the new sports dome and outdoor ice rink. • Approved a $94,000 contract with Confluence Group to create a new Park System Master Plan for the City. September 16, 2014 • Awarded a contract to Richard Mandell Golf Architecture to prepare a new Master Plan for Braemar Golf Course. To: Park Board From: Ann Kattreh Parks & Recreation Director Date: October 6, 2014 Subject: Other Correspondence Action Requested: No action is necessary. Information / Background: Agenda Item #: VIII.B. Attached are correspondence received since the last Park Board meeting. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Action ❑ Discussion ❑ Information Fred Richards Repurpose Correspondence (From to August 17, 2014 to October 2, 2014) Fourth set of emai/s/correspondence Janet Canton From: jbennerotte@EdinaMN.gov Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2014 4:02 PM To: Janet Canton Subject: Fred Richards Repurpose Process Vision Survey form submission Hi, A Fred Richards Repurpose Process Vision Survey form has been submitted on 08/07/2014 via: edinanin.gov/index.php?sectioii--fred-repurpose-survey-vision The "Adventure Area" description is vague. It would be unappealing to teens. Having a climbing wall is laughable - they are a bit passe and are not used at i other parks. I hope the space provided for sports Please describe your overall reaction to the vision for playing fields accomodates at least 2 soccer -sized Fred Richards? fields. Soccer is growing and growing in Edina (ESC i has more teams than ever) and fields are hard to come t by. I do not have strong opinions one way or the other j about the other features of the proposal. Are there any specific amenities and/or activities you would like to see that are not reflected in the current vision? Any additional comments? Batting cages would be fun for teens and would not take up too much room. Maybe some kind of maze too. There needs to be more creativity and innovative ideas. What do the other cities in the area not already have? Futsal is, by definition, an indoor sport. Name Tia Smythe Email tiasmythhe c�gmail.com -Edina Team. Janet Canton From: jbennerotte@EdinaMN.gov Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2014 8:39 PM To: Janet Canton Subject: Fred Richards Repurpose Process form submission Hi, A Fred Richards Repurpose Process form has been submitted on 08/07/2014 via: edinamn. aov/index.nhn?section--fred-repurpose-survey Please describe the type of park you would like to see Leave as is, very nice golf course for older people to j created at Fred Richards. play We as older people need more golf courses that we Any additional comments? can enjoy. -Edina Team. Janet Canton From: Lynette Biunno on behalf of Edina Mail Sent: Friday, August 08, 2014 10:18 AM To: Ann Kattreh; Janet Canton Subject: FW: Fred Richards Golf Course Good morning, This message has been forwarded to the Mayor and Council members, Ann Kattreh and Janet Canton. Lynette Biunno, Receptionist 1 —?'Y 952-927-88611 Fax 952-826-0389 IbiunnopEdinaMN.gov I www.EdinaMN.gov `s •.,;,i\`.yy„ ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business From: MIKE SUSAN MCGOLDRICK [mailto:smmccloldy61msn.com] Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2014 9:16 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: Fred Richards Golf Course I don't normally send emails regarding issues within the city, but due to how the Fred Richards closing process has been handled, I needed to voice my opinion to the city council. Although, I understand the financial challenges with Fred Richards in the future, I don't know why there is a rush to close it at the end of this year. When I saw the costs and improvements needed in the presentation earlier this year, most of the large expenses and improvements weren't needed until several years in the future. What is more concerning, is the recent news that the upgrades to the executive course at Braemar will not be completed by next golf season, so the city will be left with no executive course for the golf season next year. My son played in the Friday morning junior golf league at Fred Richards this year and if that course is closed and the executive course at Braemar is still being updated, where will all of the junior golfers in Edina play next summer? I don't understand the rush to close Fred Richards at the end of this year. Can you please consider keeping it open until the Braemar renovation is complete, otherwise junior golfers will be left with nowhere to play next season. I look forward to seeing your reply and action on this important issue so that junior golfers are not left with nowhere to play next year. Mike McGoldrick 952-922-0986 Janet Canton From: Lynette Biunno on behalf of Edina Mail Sent: Friday, August 08, 2014 4:24 PM To: Ann Kattreh; Janet Canton Subject: FW: Lake Edina Park and The Fred re -purpose - James Petersen (7401 Kellogg Avenue) Good afternoon, This message has been forwarded to the Mayor and Council members, Ann Kattreh and Janet Canton r = Lynette Biunno, Receptionist ` v952-927-8861 1 Fax 952-826-0389 Ibiunno()EdinaMN.aov I www.EdinaMN.aov ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business From: James Petersen [mailto:jmpete4 gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 08, 2014 3:39 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: Lake Edina Park and The Fred re -purpose - James Petersen (7401 Kellogg Avenue) I back-up to the North end of Lake Edina Park. We bought our property with the quiet green space buffer, being a positive. I am in favor of public / resident's enjoyment of the space, but not in favor of any street parking and walking access between adjoining properties. I am not in favor of residential ag plots that would become weedy, an eye sore multiple times a year and a dust bowl in the Fall, Winter and early Spring. 15 plus years ago money was set aside in a park referendum to improve the North grounds (level ground and remove cement, clean the cottonwood base area, thin and remove appropriately, add a winding bike/walking path through the perimeter area and add trees along the path. This with with leaving center area for kids to play catch, play Frisbee or whatever). The funds evaporated as may parks in Edina got new excessive amounts of chips around trees, as the bases around trees at Lake Edina just grew and continue to grow wild. I am in favor of improving what we have. The cottonwoods need to be thinned and some need to be completely removed. The base needs to be cleaned and chips need to be placed. The surface cement needs to be removed and dirt added leveling the ground. Fall leaf pick-up needs to occur without me having to call every year. Drainage needs to eliminate standing water and new lakes forming when we get excessive rain. I am not opposed to finally finishing the play -ground and maybe the path discussed above could run the entire park perimeter with landscaping added. Thank you, Jim and Sandy Petersen 7401 Kellogg Avenue August 9, 2014 To Whom It May Concern: Having attended the meetings on the Fred Richards conversion to a park, I am compelled to point out what I feel is needed for a logical decision and some factual observations regarding this area: An actual topographical site map showing the areas that have sub soil conditioning is needed to help decide which areas have the highest possibility of having a level, stable surface. It has worked for years in that the fairways look stable and level after 20 years. We spent a lot of money 20 years ago digging out many areas, then laid down nylon mesh and backfilled. It worked. 3. Are we trying to solve some sort of water ponding issue? Leave the ponds as they are in that it is adequate for us in the area. The sketched plans show many more ponding areas. What's the square footage of ponds now as versus what is proposed? 4. The input from the adjacent residences, I believe, is that the sector proposed for facilities is preferred to be on the south side, i.e., the 77"' Street side. The sketch shows that the active play area is concentrated in the northeast side of the park. Nothing along the 77`h Street side. The consultant's answer is that is because of some sort of soil condition. Back to number 1. It's a guess. But there is currently a water hazard (i.e. pond) in that area now; not particularly suitable for a stable playground. 5. The proposed parkway on the south side is the perfect place for parking on the roadway or for access to parking areas in the south sector of the park. This then would suggest the sporting/play facilities should again be on the south side. 6. The proposed garden area or agriculture area is in what is now a buffer zone between residential single homes and apartment areas. This area has been used as an informal general use area for the people (apartments and single- family home residents) for 50 years. It has worked well, but is not heavily used, which says something about needs for our area, but I see kids, 2 or 3 throwing a football, etc., kite flying, soccer games, Frisbee throwing, etc., is what I observe. This is an overflow/flood ponding area taking water from Parklawn Avenue. From time to time there is standing water for a while; I would say, 1 year in 3. As this area is used now, it is not a big deal and informal use is not interrupted. Leave it alone. 7. I believe the consultant leaves much to be desired. He says, again and again, nothing is final. The council will decide. Consultants are hired to provide expert knowledge in specific areas of design that the council does not have expertise in. He mentioned sand boxes which are no longer installed because of the risk of infectious disease, etc. It bothered me that he was not aware of this. We need a more competent consultant. A breath of fresh air was stated by our mayor at the council group meeting that nothing of inventiveness was presented by our consultant. He gets my vote. I have lived at 7505 Kellogg Avenue, the last house adjacent to the park, for 40 years. The decisions on the park have a direct impact on my financial investment, which now looks negative. Sincerely, Arthur G. Lowell 7505 Kellogg Avenue S. Janet Canton From: jbennerotte@EdinaMN.gov Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 1:23 PM To: Janet Canton Subject: Fred Richards Repurpose Process Vision Survey form submission Hi, A Fred Richards Repurpose Process Vision Survey form has been submitted on 08/11/2014 via: edinamn.gov/index.php?section=fred-repurpose-survey vision Are there any specific amenities and/or activities you would like to see that are not reflected in the current vision? The combination of activities on the city is appealing. However, the City continues to look at this site in isolation from its other needs. Currently, Edina has a community center only because the school district has excess space at the former Edina East High School. I have heard many people say that within 10 years, the school district will want to take back all the space, leaving Edina with no community center. There is a limited amount of developable public land in Edina for such a facility. The current facility is not adequate or competitive with what is provided by neighboring competing community, and the long-term planning of a new community center needs to have a higher priority than it is currently being given. There is a portion of the Fred Richards site that would be ideal for a community center in terms of access - the extreme SW corner. It is right off of Highway 100 and could be easily accessed from anywhere in the city. It could have shared parking with the Pentagon Park reconstruction, given that that business center's parking lots are likely to be relatively empty in the evening hours. The other possible site, right across Highway 100, from City Hall, would also be good, but again in that case, it is being looked as another development project, rather than as an opportunity to put in additional city infrastructure. Either location could be made to work, and I'm not aware of any other public land that is available. Please wake up and deal with the City's long-term needs, rather than looking for a quick and painless fix. Community center in the SW part of the Fred Richards property, developed as part of a Master Plan with the Pentagon Park redevelopment. And please, buffering was necessary before because the Pentagon Park Buildings were very ugly and didn't age well. The City needs to apply high design standards to that property, that would complement a modern r 3 community center. _ I'm glad to see that the city is talking about additional !� community garden space and it does appear that the space is appropriate for the use. However, it has the disadvantage of being located in the City's SW quadrant, when really to improve access to community gardens, it would be better to have space in the other three sectors of the city. Also, please keep ' in mind that the city is doing little now for adult recreation, focusing almost entirely on youth. To have a healthy community, we need to go beyond j providing golf courses and walking paths, but putting in other programs and facilities that appeal to middle aged and older adults. We have no adult soccer i leagues - at least as far as I'm aware. It is a sport Any additional comments? i people can easily play into their 50s. I would like to see the City develop outdoor recreation programs and services specifically for middle aged and older adults. If all the current fields are taken up by youth sports, f ( then maybe Fred Richards should be a place where we start doing more sports programming for adults. ! l Again, we only do this if this is part of a larger vision for Edina - a piece in the puzzle that makes Edina a better and healthier place to live for all who live and work here. Finally, you will get far more feedback (� and a wider cross section of the public if you rely E I more on surveys and less on public meetings. Public meetings are places where the people who loud voices and a personal agenda show up, who may be less , likely to think about the good of the community rather than "what is in it for them." r Name Joel R. Stegner —co I -E-mail joel.r.stegnerQgmail.m � _Phone x952-8433440 -��--- �—� -Edina Team. Janet Canton From: Lynette Biunno on behalf of Edina Mail Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 10:23 AM To: Ann Kattreh; Janet Canton Subject: FW: Fred Good morning, This message has been forwarded to the Mayor and Council members, Park Board members, Ann Kattreh and Janet Canton. Lynette Biunno, Receptionist 952-927-8861 1 Fax 952-826-0389 Ibiunno@EdinaMN.gov I www.EdinaMN.gov ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business -----Original Message ----- From: Bringgold@aol.com [mailto:Bringgold@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 9:52 AM To: Edina Mail Subject: Fred I read with disbelieve the 129 inches about the Fred in the current Sun. What a boondoggle. What did the course lose in 2013 and what is forecast for this year? Did anyone consider raising green fees etc to buffer or cover the shortfall if there is one? Or is it more politically correct to spend a huge amount to turn the course into something for which there is no plan? And where will that funding come from? I have been an Edina resident for over 40 years and have always been proud of Edina and the way the city was run. With the Fred fiasco I can no longer say that. Gary Bringgold, 7322 Claredon Drive. Sent from my iPad Janet Canton From: jbennerotte@EdinaMN.gov Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 8:01 PM To: Janet Canton Subject: Fred Richards Repurpose Process Vision Survey form submission Hi, A Fred Richards Repurpose Process Vision Survey form has been submitted on 08/14/2014 via: edinanm.gov/index.ph-p?section7-fred-repuMose-survey-vision Please describe your overall reaction to the vision for Generally positive. LOVE the splash pad idea as well Fred Richards? as activities for teens. j STAND-UP PADDLEBOARDING. Ages 12 -adult !! can do it. rent them for little expense and have plenty Are there any specific amenities and/or activities you of them. This is really hot in the whole state. Covered jwould like to see that are not reflected in the current I parking... short parking garage 2 floors. two lane exits vision.? from site for right and left turns so there isn't a giant back-up getting out of the park. i Do more than just'vending.' Have counters, plenty of tables, chairs: hamburgers, hot dogs, thin crust pizza, Any additional comments? ( ice cream, fruit, fresh salads; hot chocolate in winter; i Keep Fred Richards open until we are ready to start construction_ No reason to have it sit empty. --- _ — --' - — — _1 Name ( Carrie Carroll - -- -- -� Email j carriecarroll@comcast.net Phone 952_944-2141----___.-.__.�__ -Edina Team. Janet Canton From: jbennerotte@EdinaMN.gov Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 11:54 AM To: Janet Canton Subject: Fred Richards Repurpose Process Vision Survey form submission Hi, A Fred Richards Repurpose Process Vision Survey form has been submitted on 08/15/2014 via: The process for this "repurpose" was rushed, less than transparent, and without the city council/consultant listening to resident concern. Further, the use of an f expensive consultant seems offensive to the talents of the city staff, resident voices, and fiscal responsibility. It is short-sighted and without solid community backing to "repurpose" this space after a couple of 1 down revenue years. The city has done a poor job of promoting this course in the recession years and seems to have given up on golf. The policy of making i all city -owned enterprises make money is great in theory, but the city is not a business and not all city amenities should go away after a few poorly marketed down years. Steps need to be made to bring Edina golfers back home to Braemar, there is not a shortage of golfers in Edina only where they choose to play! I also have a problem with the timing of the closure of Please describe your overall reaction to the vision for the Fred Richards course while the Braemar golf ' Fred Richards? course will be undergoing renovations; it seems to I make sense to keep it open at least until Braemar is 1 complete. The repurpose of the Fred Richards site at the same time as the Pentagon project does not pass the "smell test" and my bet is that there is back room assurance to provide runoff containment and a walking park for the developers to hype as an amenity to their tenants. The Pentagon site should have long ago been privately redeveloped and the city council seems to only now be ready to hand over tax incentives to do what privately should have been i years ago. I'm sure the current plan for the Pentagon jsite is not visionary enough for such a prime location jand only seeks short term profit for the developer over long term benefit for Edina citizens. How is Edina improved after this closure, "repurpose", and Pentagon redevelopment? In hindsight, Edina should have declared Pentagon Park blighted ten years ago, taken by eminent domain like the Wally McCarthy -Edina Team. site, redeveloped and we now would be reaping the i additional tax revenues. I'm not convinced-the land is suited for much else Are there any specific amenities and/or activities you than a golf course. Absent the current Fred Richards would like to see that are not reflected in the current golf course, how about foot golf, disc golf, and soccer vision? fields? I "—""--��at of the promises made to adjacent home owners Any additional comments? i { when they built next to the original golf course? Name .—__ I James Gleason � ,F—Em—ail J gleason2001@aol.com Phone 952-944-4050 -Edina Team. Janet Canton From: jbennerotte@EdinaMN.gov Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2014 10:11 AM To: Janet Canton Subject: Fred Richards Repurpose Process Vision Survey form submission Hi, A Fred Richards Repurpose Process Vision Survey form has been submitted on 08/16/2014 via: edinanui.gov/index.php?section=fred-re-otiri)ose-survey-visio (___.---._—.._.___.._ - - - mH� - .___.—__.--F I As fairly new residents of Edina we were very pleased i to discover the charming Fred Richards course and we use it regularly when we want to play a quick game of � Please describe your overall reaction to the vision for golf. ; We love to see youngsters and seniors getting g j Fred Richards? E out and enjoying this facility. It made us proud to call Edina our new home. How sad that the present city council is following this city managers directions and f 1 losing one of the amenities that make Edina a special place to live. i perhaps the course could have a day or two dedicated { Are there any specific amenities and/or activities you to the popular new activity of foot golf. I understand would like to see that are not reflected in the current j that the Hyland course in Bloomington is finding that vision? use is actually making money for them. I doubt if this i temporary interim use would be a costly repurpose expense. + �y additional comments? —, Please reconsider this decision! Name Barbara Herbst ----- --....- Email E Naples2272@comcast.net Phone 952-835-7475 -Edina Team. Janet Canton From: jbennerotte@EdinaMN.gov Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2014 11:42 AM To: Janet Canton Subject: Fred Richards Repurpose Process Vision Survey form submission Hi, A Fred Richards Repurpose Process Vision Survey form has been submitted on 08/16/2014 via: edinanni.gov/index.php?section--fred-reptirpose-survey-vision Please describe your overall reaction to the vision for Fred Richards? Go slow. I Are there any specific amenities and/or activities you Please consider the inclusion of kick golf or minature golf (better still, both). They would seem to be a would like to see that are not reflected in the current popular and continuing ammenity to the historical use vision? of the of the property. i This will be a big project, long time decision for the Any additional comments? area so don't rush any decision. -Edina Team. Janet Canton From: jbennerotte@EdinaMN.gov Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 11:46 AM To: Janet Canton Subject: Fred Richards Repurpose Process Vision Survey form submission Hi, A Fred Richards Repurpose Process Vision Survey form has been submitted on 08/18/2014 via: edinamli.gov/index.phi)?section--fred-rgpurvose-surveytyLsion Please describe your overall reaction to the vision for It needs to stay as is. Fred Richards? Are there any specific amenities and/or activities you would like to see that are not reflected in the current Do not close this golf course. vision? Any additional comments? Name Email -Edina Team. I Closing is a stupid idea. Barb Nichols jandbnichols@eailhlink.net Janet Canton From: jbennerotte@EdinaMN.gov Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 10:40 PM To: Janet Canton Subject: Fred Richards Repurpose Process Vision Survey form submission Hi, A Fred Richards Repurpose Process Vision Survey form has been submitted on 08/21/2014 via: edinanin.gov/index.php?section7—fred-repumose-survey-visi -Edina Team. I think all you can do with that land is walking paths. A golf facility is the best use in my opinion. The Please describe your overall reaction to the vision for council has abandoned the purpose of the area. I can't Fred Richards? imagine any other use. Golf is not dead yet.The new nine holes at Braemar is a maintenance nightmare. That is the course to try to rehab. The Driving Range is overdue for remodel. Great project. The new nine(19-27) is in need of a complete overhaul. Nobody wants to play it. Everyone who does complains about conditions. The Braemar Maint. Any additional comments? personnel do a fabulous job .The entire course has been deprived of major improvements for many years. J The last 20 years has taken it's toll on the course. It's still one of the finest settings for public golf in the state. Good Luck for what is chosen to do. FName John Nylund I Email j Phone mcclund@comcast.net 952-334-1420 -Edina Team. Janet Canton From: jbennerotte@EdinaMN.gov Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 4:25 PM To: Janet Canton Subject: Fred Richards Repurpose Process Vision Survey form submission Hi, A Fred Richards Repurpose Process Vision Survey form has been submitted on 08/26/2014 via: edinamn. gov/index.php?section=fred-reptupose-survey-vision F_ Looks expensive andbasicallya dumping ground for; i Please describe your overall reaction to the vision for runoff from the new Pentagon Park development. I Fred Richards? have heard that the cost will be in the 10 - 15 Million range, which seems out of line given it was closed to save 50k / year at the golf course. Are there any specific amenities and/or activities you I would like to see that are not reflected in the current If it can not be a golf course, then would make it vision? mostly athletic fields. , Any additional comments9 Would like to see it remain a golf course -seems like i the most cost effective option Name Aaron Swann Email aaron.c.swann@seagate.com Phone F�i 2-845-5914 -Edina Team. Janet Canton From: jbennerotte@EdinaMN.gov Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 7:46 AM To: Janet Canton Subject: Fred Richards Repurpose Process Vision Survey form submission Hi, A Fred Richards Repurpose Process Vision Survey form has been submitted on 08/28/2014 via: edinanin.gov/index.vhp?section--fred-repuroose-survey-visio -Edina Team. The city has too much exposure now in recreational Please describe your overall reaction to the vision for sites. This area would better benefit the city if it was Fred Richards? f bring in tax revenue Are there any specific amenities and/or activities you i all city operated amenities are now priced out of the would like to see that are not reflected in the current budget of lower income residents so we do not need vision? i more amenities for higher income residents We feel that Edina is way too over staffed with workers now. If an effort was made to cut back on ; Any additional comments? involvement and lower the costs of operating the city this would best serve residents Name Jim Kollross � Email � JimKollrossna,msn.com --- — -- 4-------�---------------_�--------- Phone _- � 952829-0501 -Edina Team. Janet Canton From: jbennerotte@EdinaMN.gov Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 1:49 PM To: Janet Canton Subject: Fred Richards Repurpose Process Vision Survey form submission Hi, A Fred Richards Repurpose Process Vision Survey form has been submitted on 08/28/2014 via: edinamn.gov/index.ph-p?section--fred-repurpose-survey-vision Please describe your overall reaction to the vision for ` I would like to address the Nine Mile Creek trail Fred Richards? aspect. Are there any specific amenities and/or activities you— j i would like to see that are not reflected m the current E ;See above vision? i The proposed Nine Mile Creek trail is now laid out using orange paint markers. It shows the trail I originating at the southwest end of 77th St. It then goes north to the cul de sac on Kellogg joining the Any additional comments9 trail going to Parklawn Ave. Was anybody listening to the neighbors who wanted the main attractions to be on the south end of the park? I thought it was supposed to be going along 77th St going north near Parklawn. This is exactly opposite. So much for citizens' input. Name Art Lowell Email marcia lowell@Msn.com i Phone 1952-927-5773 -Edina Team. Janet Canton From: jbennerotte@EdinaMN.gov Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 2:19 PM To: Janet Canton Subject: Fred Richards Repurpose Process Vision Survey form submission Hi, A Fred Richards Repuipose Process Vision Survey form has been submitted on 09/02/2014 via: edinamn gov/index php?section=fred-repurpose-surve -vy ision Please describe your overall reaction to the vision for Fred Richards? Mistake. Keep the course, close the Braemar nine. Use that space for additional rinks, soccer domes, etc. One resident also had the idea to sell the back Braemar 9 to developers to fund rinks, domes. Good idea. j Are there any specific amenities and/or activities you would like to see that are not reflected in the current See above. i vision? -Edina Team. Janet Canton From: jbennerotte@EdinaMN.gov Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 3:21 PM To: Janet Canton Subject: Fred Richards Repurpose Process Vision Survey form submission Hi, A Fred Richards Repurpose Process Vision Survey form has been submitted on 09/02/2014 via: edinanm.gov/index.php?section7--fred-repuMose-survey-vision -Edina Team. ---Why close it when people have been playing it for iPlease describe your overall reaction to the vision for years ------sometimes it is getting too expensive to 1 ' Fred Richards? play golf at the other courses--again-money rules and it si pahasing out many of the common blue collar people--- just like the Vikes new stadium -----Kevin Name Kevin Timm Email kat.99@msn.com Foh ne 763-439-3318 _.._..._ ._._._.___._�.._.m..� -Edina Team. Janet Canton From: jbennerotte@edinamn.gov Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2014 7:43 PM To: Janet Canton Subject: Fred Richards Repurpose Process Vision Survey form submission Hi, A Fred Richards Repurpose Process Vision Survey form has been submitted on 09/06/2014 via: edinamn iov/index php?section=fred-repurpose-survey-vision -Edina Team. Keep it as a golf course. There are very few executive ! Please describe your overall reaction to the vision for courses. I never knew this course existed until just Fred Richards? recently.... never advertised.... poorly marked. It has a lot of potential if more knew it was there. NameBruce Allan ( Email bamdoff@ao1.com Phone— ----- �--A-- __ — -- -- 612616-5830--'---- -Edina Team. September 8, 2014 To Whom It May Concern: I noticed orange markings coming across Fred Richards golf course to the cul de sec on Kellogg Avenue. The markings, from Kellogg, go south along the west side of the practice putting green and then south again causing the regional trail to go from east to north directly into the Kellogg cul de sec. I called Three Rivers Park District and spoke to Jason regarding the Nine Mile Creek Trail. I was then informed that it was Edina who had suggested they look at this new path for the trail. According to this representative, it was not the Three Rivers Park District's original proposal for the path of the trail. All routes until this time had gone east on 77t", and then went north along Parklawn. One route showed it going across the bridge that now goes to the ninth hole tee -off. Apparently now Edina has proposed the trail travel through what Is now Fred Richards golf course and join the trail at the Kellogg cul de sac with Edina's trail going east to Parklawn. I am concerned that this will cause more traffic on Kellogg and parking of cars on Kellogg because this then creates a terminal point for access to the trail. Access to the north side of the park will be the cul de sac on Kellogg. This is inevitable. But, I would prefer that we not design in additional features that draw any more activity, parking, etc., to the north side of the park adjacent to our single family homes. All designs shown to date showed the trail on the south side and far east portions of the new park. Buffering the existing Edina trail will be exceedingly difficult not only in the single-family home neighborhood of Kellogg, but also near -impossible where it is within 5 feet of the property line of the apartment at 4380 Parklawn and approximately 50 feet from the apartment's bedroom windows on that side. The route of the trail over the existing 9"' hole bridge, and then to Parklawn, makes a lot more sense from a buffering point of view. This new route was not suggested nor presented in any of the public meetings. The other trail routes proposed by Three Rivers were all shown, and I did not hear any negative comments regarding those routes. Why would you now deviate to yet another potentially negative proposal? Sincerely, Art Lowell 7505 Kellogg Avenue S. Edina, MN 55435 Janet Canton From: jbennerotte@edinamn.gov Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 7:35 PM To: Janet Canton Subject: Fred Richards Repurpose Process Vision Survey form submission Hi, A Fred Richards Repurpose Process Vision Survey form has been submitted on 09/08/2014 via: edinamn.2ov/index. pho?section=fred-repurpose-survey-vision I j Please describe your overall reaction to the vision for Overall pleased - Would love to see the area used for multi purpose - bringing in a variety of people for a Fred Richards? variety of activities, all seasons Are there any specific amenities and/or activities you WINTER activities - sledding hill, perhaps a cross country ski trail, ETC. We have LONG winters and it would like to see that are not reflected in the current is crazy to have parks sit dormant. We need activities vision? that encourage people to get out in the winter. Just to repeat the need for winter use activities - cross Any additional comments? country skiing, sledding, snow shoeing, etc. - -- ------------ -- --- --- - ---- — -- Name � -- ---—........ _ — -- -- - — ----- Rochelle Larson ��- Email rlarsonordergearthlinlc.net i Phone 952-944-1645 -Edina Team. 1j,114 EIUPOL�-'S - WiN Janet Canton From: jbennerotte@edinamn.gov Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 2:10 PM To: Janet Canton Subject: Fred Richards Repurpose Process Vision Survey form submission Hi, A Fred Richards Repurrpose Process Vision Survey form has been submitted on 09/11/2014 via: edinamn.gov/index.php?section--fred-repurpose-survey-vY ision -Edina Team. More use by more users is a good thing. I think it is a little too auto -centric and the City should place great emphasis in the redesign and in the Pentagon Park p g g Please describe your overall reaction to the vision for E redevelopment and any other redevelopment, to I Fred Richards9 j increase bike and pedestrian access. Walking, biking, 1 skating, etc. to a neighborhood park is so much more pleasant than driving, and the driving access is i i terrible, requiring time on busy France Avenue or the freeway. Nordic (cross-country) skiing. It is one of the largest- i participation, most popular sports at Edina High j School. It's cheap to layout and maintain trails. ! 1 Hyland Park trails are extremely popular. It's a great Are there any specific amenities and/or activities you winter sport. It doesn't conflict with other sports - would like to see that are not reflected in the current once the snow is gone, the land can be 100% used for # vision? warm -weather activities. The demographics are great - Nordic skiers tend to be highly -educated, higher - earning, successful and fit people. Businesses love having them as customers. I think that there could j also be skating on the ponds, and creation of a sledding hill or area. I think it should be Better -connected to the i neighborhoods to the north and east, rather than ( minimizing those connections. I live north of it and I want to use it. I know people are worried about crime s Any additional comments? i and loss of privacy, but I wonder how much crime happens to homes bordering on Edina's other parks? I am fine with the buffer, but I do want street and ( sidewalk access so that kids can get to the park without having to go on busy streets. Name Neal Blanchett Email nblanchetta,carlson.com -Edina Team. Janet Canton From: jbennerotte@edinamn.gov Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 12:03 AM To: Janet Canton Subject: Fred Richards Repurpose Process Vision Survey form submission Hi, A Fred Richards Repurpose Process Vision Survey forin has been submitted on 09/12/2014 via: edinamn.Rov/index.phy?section--fred-repurpos-e-survey-vision Please describe your overall reaction to the vision for Sad to see a nice family golf course being taken away. The cost of keeping the golf course looks like it will Fred Richards? be much much less than repurposing the park/ �' ---- — Yes, I would like to see the park be similar to Bredesen Park in Edina. It should have Are there any specific amenities and/or activities you running/walking trails in a Nature preserve setting. In the winter there could be cross country ski trails. The would like to see that are not reflected in the current park should be a natural wildlife oasis. If there was vision? any "active recreational" use, I like to see a Footgolf course, as 1 think this would be popular at it would pay homage to Fred Richards golf course. r____ - _ i I love Centennial Lakes park, but PLEASE we don't An additional comments? Any need another park like Centennial Lakes! Geir Johansen I Name Email i ReirlohansenMZnamail.com Phone 952-929-7247 -Edina Team. Janet Canton From: Lynette Biunno on behalf of Edina Mail Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 8:56 AM To: Ann Kattreh; Janet Canton Subject: FW: Fred Richards Golf Good morning, This message has been forwarded to the Mayor and Council members, Ann Kattreh and Janet Canton. Lynette Biunno, Receptionist r ! 952-927-8861 1 Fax 952-826-0389 iF r IbiunnoEdinaMN.g (a)ov i www.EdinaMN.gov ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business From: M. I Huber [mailto:mjhuber(a)hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2014 12:21 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: Fred Richards Golf Please keep Fred Richards Golf open, we play golf and then lunch at nearby restaurants and afterwards shop at the area malls. Much of the benefits are invisible unless you look for them. But there is plenty of room there to work in some trails and picnic areas but it does not lend itself to such use to any significant level. I suspect your redevelopment costs and maintenance costs will exceed the minor operating losses that have arisen from several years of poor weather. And if you work with the local primary and high schools to get all kids an opportunity to play, you could probably cover your costs and turn it into a real incubator for Minnesota golf. Think big, please! Sincerely, Mark Huber 969 Delaware Avenue Mendota Heights, MN 55118 3253 N. Girard Ave. Mpls,. MN mihuber@Hotmail.com Janet Canton From: jbennerotte@edinamn.gov Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 1:48 PM To: Janet Canton Subject: Fred Richards Repurpose Process Vision Survey form submission Hi, A Fred Richards Repurpose Process Vision Survey form has been submitted on 09/15/2014 via: Please describe your overall reaction to the vision for Fred Richards? Are there any specific amenities and/or activities you would like to see that are not reflected in the current vision? -Edina Team. The Fred Richards should remain a golf course and that is my vision. Improve the course with better turf. It is a wonderful, serene sight away from the hustle and bustle of the city life. Janet Canton From: jbennerotte@edinamn.gov Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 4:45 PM To: Janet Canton Subject: Fred Richards Repurpose Process Vision Survey form submission Hi, A Fred Richards Repurpose Process Vision Survey form has been submitted on 04/16/2014 via: edinamn.Pov/index.php?section--fred-reptupose-survey-vision Please describe your overall reaction to the vision for It is a stupid decision! The Fred is used by senior i Fred Richards? citizens and young citizens just starting to play golf. i Are there any specific amenities and/or activities you I have not seen a current vision that makes more sense would like to see that are not reflected in the current than leaving it as a golf course vision? Any additional comments? Reverse your decision and leave the Fred as a golf course! Name - Larry Buechler - w Email Lbuechler@comcast. Net j Phone 612-845-8062 E -Edina Team. Janet Canton From: jbennerotte@edinamn.gov Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 8:22 AM To: Janet Canton Subject: Fred Richards Repurpose Process Vision Survey form submission Hi, A Fred Richards Repurpose Process Vision Survey form has been submitted on 09/22/2014 via: edinamn. aov/index.nhn?section=fred-renumose-survey-vision Please describe your overall reaction to the vision for NOT happy Fred Richards? �— Are there any specific amenities and/or activities you would like to see that are not reflected in the current � golf course related vision? �----------- ---- --------f Any additional comments? -- ---- Please keep the course. —�- - -- _ -- -—_--�—! I Name ! pissed off --.T_—. �_- IEmail cakeeater2@yahoo.com Phone 952-927-8861 -Edina Team. Janet Canton From: jbennerotte@edinamn.gov Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 201412:57 PM To: Janet Canton Subject: Fred Richards Repurpose Process Vision Survey form submission FE A Fred Richards Repuipose Process Vision Survey form has been submitted on 09/23/2014 via: Please describe your overall reaction to the vision for Fred Richards? Are there any specific amenities and/or activities you would like to see that are not reflected in the current vision? The guiding principles seem decent. Edina devotes a lot of space and money to organized sports and activities. In nearby Centennial Lakes, we have a more entertainment -oriented park. I would like to see Fred Richards' main focus be on a natural sanctuary, a place of tranquility. We live in a very programmed, hectic world in a very densely developed area. Our physical and mental well-being are dependent on access to nature. In the words of Minnesota's Sigurd Olson, "preservation of natural areas...has a ... fundamental significance,,, concerned with broad social values that have to do with human happiness, deep human needs ... values that may be a counteraction to the type of world we live in." I would like to see a place where grandparents and grandchildren can enjoy an impromptu stroll, families can sit on a blanket and enj oy the views or toss a Frisbee around. I think that a signed nature trail where kids (and adults) can learn about plants, trees, birds and other wildlife would be great. I would I like to see plant choices be beneficial to butterflies, bees and birds. I like the buffered areas. I especially do not want to see big banks of lights flooding the more active areas. I am concerned that the vastly increased amount of water area will hamper informal green space use. I also see it as a potential ACCESSIBILITY issue. At Centennial Lakes, a person wanting to take shorter walks is restricted in options if he or she can't handle the steeply-staired bridges. I am very concerned about the cost of conversion of the golf course to the park and of ongoing Any additional comments? maintenance costs. A big deal was made of the expense of Fred Richards in spite of the fact that the vast majority of its development and ongoing costs were met by Braemar golfers (I'm not a golfer, so no self-interest there). It has been basically self- supporting and could be even more so. Within days of the decision to close it, a $2,000,000 overrun on the hockey arena was announced, and no one said "boo." That certainly is a very specific interest group that has already received a great deal of investment. Our household receives no benefit from that huge expenditure. Do we really need the expense of converting one quiet green space to another? -Edina Team. Sept.26,2014 To whom it may concern: The meeting on Sept 23 left me with a rather disturbing conclusion: your consultant and Edina do not have a comprehensive overall view of the final park design. There was no discussion of how the design integrates the parking of cars and the location of major activities that draw parking needs to them. My question to the consultant as to the concentration in the northeast section which will encourage parking along Parklawn Ave and the cul de sac on Kellogg Ave was answered by saying "Edina was looking at this problem," These issues cannot be looked at as if they are independent of each other. Having a parking ramp or area on 77" was discussed. The accomplishment of this is when????? The design and completion of the buildings by the Pentagon office on 77"' St is stated to be as far away as 15 years. In the meantime???? In the past when the east side of Kellogg was a park, a parking lot existed where the 9"' hole tee off is now. I believe that worked very well and stated that to the consultant. He answered by stating "that was just my opinion". I said,"No, it is a 20 year observation" Regarding the garden area, he stated it may not happen, but was not totally off the table. How many more negative comments deed to be stated?! 11 After all the public input,the design remains as first proposed except for the regional trail going' J�x to the cul de sac. As stated before, the trail increases the likelihood and encourages access to the park at the end of Kellogg Ave. Yes, I live at the end of Kellogg Ave and your decisions can have a very negative effect on my retirement plans. My home represents a 40 year ownership that was achieved from a lifetime of hard work and saving. I have no intentions of giving that up now! I As I have stated before in previous letters, Edina should seriously think about hiring a new consultant. Sincerely, Art Lowell Janet Canton From: jbennerotte@edinamn.gov Sent: Friday, September 26, 2014 11:34 AM To: Janet Canton Subject: Fred Richards Repurpose Process Vision Survey form submission Hi, A Fred Richards Repurpose Process Vision Survey form has been submitted on 09/26/2014 via: Pdimmn anv/ind.Y_nh-n?sectinn=fred-rentit-nose-survev-vision Please describe your overall reaction to the vision for A resource for the whole city, and a place for Fred Richards? recreational opportunies not provided elsewherein tthe j city. Are there any specific amenities and/or activities you New community center, assuming one is not built at would like to see that are not reflected in the current Grandview. vision? An additional comments? Please come up with space and programming for Any working adults and seniors, not just more for youth. Name Joel Stegner Email joel.r.stewier@mail.com Phone 874-843-3440 -Edina Team. I Janet Canton From: jbennerotte@edinamn.gov Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 9:59 AM To: Janet Canton Subject: Fred Richards Repurpose Process form submission Hi, A Fred Richards Repurpose Process form has been submitted on 09/30/2014 via: edinanul.gov/index.php?section--fred-repuLTose-sunLey j { I am responding to the Schonbauer's final proposal for 1! ', the park, given on September 23. I live at the narrow west end of the golf course. At the west end, you have moved the bike trail closer to the homes, enlarged the ( ponds and prevented the walking path from i circumnavigating the entire course. However, it seems likely to me that people will continue around the course regardless of where the path goes. I saw a 1 jogger running on the grass just the other day (and I golf is still in session!). Given how close the pond is Any additional comments? to my backyard, people ignoring the path will be I walking very close to my home, closer than the 75' [ buffer. What methods will you use to enforce use of the path? I would have preferred to have the pond very close to my yard (it has always been a serious ! trouble spot as far as collecting water) to prevent people coming that way. I think there should be further study of this possibility. I can also foresee kids riding their mountain bikes through our area, like they do at Bredesen, and chewing it up. Do you have plans j to prevent bikes doing this? j Email i felhanson(a@gmail.com -Edina Team. Janet Canton From: jbennerotte@edinamn.gov Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 7:33 AM To: Janet Canton Subject: Fred Richards Repurpose Process form submission Hi, A Fred Richards Repuipose Process form has been submitted on 10/02/2014 via: edinamn. gov/index.php?section--fred-repurpose-survey Please describe the type of park you would IEAcrk like to see created at Fred Richards. I http://www.QS3PE5ZGdxC9IoVKTAPT2DBYpPkMKgfz.com In addition to the ideas you listed above, IF what specific amenities and/or activities IEAcrk would you like to see accommodated at Fred 1 http://www.QS3P ZGdxC9loVKTAPT2DBYI)PkMKqfz.com Richards? Any additional comments? IEAcrk http•//www QS3PE5ZGdxC9IoVKTAPT2DBYpPkMKafz.com Name ItZXURNgSw Phone`— HqY-Bgz-rTZt Email ZaSpmlxgOkVcdgBA -Edina Team. I Janet Canton 'rom: Ann Kattreh ent: Friday, October 03, 2014 1:26 PM To: Janet Canton Subject: FW: Fred Richards grounds! Ann Kattreh, Parks & Recreation Director 952-826-0430 1 Fax 952-826-0385 AKattreh@EdinaMN.Rov I www.EdinaMN.gov ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business -----Original Message ----- From: Lynette Biunno On Behalf Of Edina Mail Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 1:19 PM To: Ann Kattreh Subject: FW: Fred Richards grounds! Good afternoon, This message has been forwarded to the Mayor and Council members and Ann Kattreh. mette Biunno, Receptionist 52-927-88611 Fax 952-826-0389 lbiunno@EdinaMN.gov I www.EdinaMN.Bov ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business -----Original Message ----- From: Lois Weidner [mailto:cameotours@msn.com] Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 12:29 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: Fred Richards grounds! Attention park planners: I would like to suggest that you take into consideration the large amount of young children that live on Parklawn Ave and please put a playground on the area that is bound by Parklawn. !10/08/2014 . It would be worth your hour or two to witness the long lines of children who get picked up by school bus at the Cedars of Edina and also at 4101 Parklawn. This is a serious suggestion as these children have no playground to play on. Thanks for all your work. Lois Weidner 4120 Parklawn Ave. Edina, Mn 55435 32-835-3814 -ameotours@msn.com Janet Canton From: jbennerotte@edinamn.gov Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 4:28 PM To: Janet Canton Subject: Fred Richards Repurpose Process form submission Hi, A Fred Richards Repurpose Process form has been submitted on 10/03/2014 via: A park does seem like a logical purpose for the golf j course but I would love to see a beautiful art and music cultural center as a centerpiece of the park. Not only would the surrounding provide a beautiful scene for such a construction but would offer the one thing Edina misses. A place of culture where plays and E musical events could take place. We could invite musical groups of all types to interest our citizens, old Please describe the type of park you would like to see i and young.A theater venue could establish an Edina ; created at Fred Richards. theater group for amateur productions and perhaps i with a funding campaign, could establish a place ' where all the artistic talent in Minneapolis would love to perform. Parking in the park could be hidden by an underground design for autos under a great design. I do believe our residents would respond to a campaign i to contribute their dollars for such a vision. We have enough time to investigate this idea to see if Edinans are interested and would help fund such an endeavor. E ._._............................__.......___......_._----- ._.............. _____-._......_.._..-_....__................_..---------- ...._. ............... ........ ._._._............._f Name Dorothy 011mann Phone Email -Edina Team. I 952-941-1728 dollmann@comcast.net